IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
   ITA 436/2013  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT-IV       ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 M/S HOUSING and URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. 
 . 
 ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
      23.09.2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 C.M.No.14056/2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 There is delay of 69 days in refiling of the appeal. 
 . 
 For the reasons stated in the application, delay in refiling is 
 condoned. 
 . 
 The application is disposed of. 
 . 
 ITA 436/2013 
 . 
 At the outset, we record that Annexure-2 to the appeal does not 
 relate to the penalty proceedings but is an order passed by the 
 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relating to the assessment 
 proceedings.   However, having gone through the facts recorded by the 
 tribunal, we do not find any ground or reason to interfere with the 
 impugned order deleting penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) 
 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in respect of assessment year 1997-98. 
 Learned counsel for the appellant does dispute full and true disclosure 
 by the respondent in view of the specific statement made in the ?Notes on 
 Accounts? on change in method of accounting and why and for what reason 
 Rs.8.67 crores was not included in the taxable income.  The respondent- 
 assessee had earned interest on KFW grants received from Germany.  The 
 contention of the assessee was that this interest should not be included 
 and shown in the profit and loss account as this was contrary to 
 Accounting Standard No.1 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants 
 of India.  The tribunal has specifically referred to and reproduced the 
 commercial audit report and paragraph 3 of Schedule ?U? in which the 
 specific statement to the said effect was made. 
 . 
 Learned counsel for the Revenue however submits that in the last 
 year i.e., the assessment year 1996-97 the assessee on their own had 
 added back Rs.29.62 crores and included the same for the purpose of 
 computation of income-tax.  This was on the basis of legal advice given 
 by the auditor. 
 . 
 The tribunal in the impugned order has gone into the explanation 
 given by the assessee and also the nature and type of accounting change 
 in accord and as per Accounting Standard No.1.  To this extent, there is 
 no dispute and the Revenue cannot and does challenge the findings 
 recorded by the tribunal.  As far as the assessee himself adding back 
 Rs.29.62 crores in the last year is concerned, it was on the basis of 
 legal or professional advice but this did not bar or prohibit the 
 assessee to make a claim in the next years.  Full and true disclosure of 
 facts was made by the assessee and it was not the case of the Revenue 
 that the explanation offered and the stand of the assessee was not 
 legally plausible.  The assessee, therefore, as recorded by the tribunal, 
 had proceeded bonafidely.  Last year the assessee may have taken a 
 conservative view but in the current year upon reconsideration they had 
 made the claim, after full details were mentioned and stated.  On legal 
 issues there can be difference of opinion. A claim which requires 
 consideration on merits but facts and figures are correct and 
 transparently stated, does not justify imposition of penalty.  Such cases 
 are covered by Explanation 1.  The tribunal?s finding that the 
 explanation was bona fide cannot and should not be interfered with.  The 
 said finding is a finding of fact. 
 . 
 The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. 
 . 
 SEPTEMBER 23, 2013/ NA 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 24 
 .