IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 683/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT                      ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through: Mr. N P Sahni, sr. standing counsel 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 AMIT JAIN             ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
    21.12.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 The question of law sought to be urged by the revenue in this 
 appeal against the order dated 16.2.2012 of the ITAT in ITA 
 No.5596/Del./2011 is whether the Tribunal fell into error in directing 
 deletion of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). 
 . 
 2. The assessee declared an income of `2,60,73,558/- from short term 
 capital gains.  The assessing officer on an interpretation of the 
 relevant provisions and having regard to the nature of transactions 
 assessed it as income from business.  He also levied penalty under 
 Section 271(1)(c) to the tune of `58,45,899/- on the ground that assessee 
 had produced inaccurate particulars.  The CIT(Appeals) on being 
 approached by the assessee cancelled the penalty; the revenue 
 unsuccessfully appealed to the Tribunal. 
 . 
 3. This Court notices that the Tribunal while upholding the order of 
 the appellate commissioner relied upon the decision in CIT Vs. Reliance 
 Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC).  Furthermore, the record 
 reveals that the amount in question, which formed the basis for the 
 assessing officer to levy penalty ? was in fact truthfully reported in 
 the returns.  In view of this circumstance, that the assessing officer 
 chose to treat the income under some other head cannot characterize the 
 particulars or reported in the return as an ?inaccurate particulars? or 
 as suppression of facts.  The Court is also conscious of the decision of 
 the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 
 (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) where it was held that it is up to the assessing 
 officer to interpret the return and discern as to which head of income 
 the amount had to be brought to tax. 
 . 
 In view of the above circumstance, this Court is of the view that 
 no substantial question of law arises for consideration and the same is 
 dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 DECEMBER 21, 2012 
 . 
 vld 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 1 
 .