IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 6. 
         ITA 969/2010  
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                          ..... Appellant 
 Through:       Mrs. P.L. Bansal, Adv. 
 versus 
 . 
 ASIA GREENS LTD                                              ..... 
 Respondent 
 Through:       None 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                               30.07.2010 
 CM 12869/2010 
 . 
 This is an application for delay in re-filing the appeal.  Heard learned 
 counsel for the appellant.  Regard being had to the averments made in the 
 application, delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 
 The application stands disposed of. 
 ITA 969/2010 
 Calling in question the justifiability of the order passed by the Income 
 Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?A? (for short ?the tribunal?) in ITA No. 
 1172/Del/2007 pertaining to assessment year 2001-2002, the present appeal has 
 been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ?the 
 Act?). 
 ITA 969/2010 
 Page 1 of 3 
 The assessee was proceeded under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and 
 eventually a penalty amounting to Rs.11,01,764/- was imposed on the ground that 
 assessee had shown Rs.60,35,750/- as agricultural income which was disallowed by 
 . 
 . 
 the assessing officer and on an appeal being preferred, the CIT(A) reduced it to 
 Rs.30 lacs. 
 After the disposal of the appeal relating to the quantum in the penalty 
 proceedings, the assessee offered an explanation which was found to be bona fide 
 by the tribunal.  Be it noted, the tribunal in the order impugned has referred 
 to the order passed by CIT(A) on the quantum of appeal and held as under: 
 . 
 ?16.  On reading the aforesaid Tribunal?s order, it is seen that the fact that 
 assessee has undertaken agricultural operation has not been disputed.  The 
 dispute was only with regard to the quantum of the agricultural income earned by 
 the assessee.  The amount of agricultural income shown by assessee to 
 Rs.60,36,750/- has been found to be excessive incurred by the assessee.  The 
 Tribunal has also observed that assessee?s claim regarding the scope of 
 agricultural operation and income is not fully supported by any acceptable 
 evidence or material.  But there is no finding that the assessee has made a 
 false claim or the amount of agricultural income shown by the assessee was 
 earned from any other source or soruces but falsely shown under the head 
 ?agricultural income?.  It is the case where assessee?s claim has been rejected 
 by  drawing  a  reasonable  presumptions  and 
 . 
 ITA 969/2010 
 Page 2 of 3 
 . 
 inferences, and not by establishing and proving that the assessee?s explanation 
 was false.  We, therefore, hold that it is not a fit case where penalty can be 
 levied u/s 271(1)(c) in as much as the assessee has given a bonafide explanation 
 regarding the scope of extent of agricultural income through might not have been 
 accepted by the department for want of conclusive and sufficient evidences.? 
 . 
 In our considered opinion, the view expressed by the tribunal is totally 
 in the realm of facts and it cannot be said that acceptance of the explanation 
 offered by the assessee would tantamount to any kind of perversity in 
 delineation of the issue. 
 Thus, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and accordingly the 
 same stands dismissed in limine. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CHIEF JUSTICE 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 MANMOHAN, J 
 JULY 30, 2010 
 pk 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 969/2010 
 Page 3 of 3