The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of various sections of the Income Tax Act, including Section 2(47)(ii), (v) and (vi) and the essential ingredients for the applicability of Section 53A of the 1882 Act.

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 175, 176 and 213 of 2016 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved in all these appeals is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 175 of 2016.

2. ITA No. 175 of 2016 has been preferred by the appellant-revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 8.12.2015, Annexure A.7, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short, “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 27/Chd/2015 for the assessment year 2007-08, claiming following substantial questions of law:-

“(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in deleting the penalty when the assessee had not fully disclosed the accrued capital gain even in income tax return filed under Section 148 and the appeal in the issue of quantum addition was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court?

(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in deleting the penalty when the assessee had not fully disclosed the accrued capital gain and thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of income especially in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana and another?

3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The respondent-assessee is one of the members of the Punjabi Cooperative House Building Society Limited consisting of 95 members present and Ex MLAs of Punjab Legislative Assembly who was the owner of 21.2 acres of land in Village Kansal, District Mohali (Punjab). The society entered into the tripartite Joint Development Agreement with M/s HASH Builders Private Limited (HASH) and M/s Tata Housing Development Company Limited Mumbai (THDC) which was agreed upon among these parties that the society shall transfer its land to THDC in lieu of monetary consideration and consideration in kind. As per the agreement each member of the society having a plot of 500 square yards in the society shall receive Rs.82,50,000/- as monetary consideration and as consideration in kind each member owning plot of 500 square yards shall receive one furnished flat measuring 2250 square feet to be constructed by THDC. The cost of such furnished flat was of Rs. 1,01,25,000/- The members owning plot of 1000 square were to get two such flats apart from the money as entire consideration. The assessee was the owner of 500 square yards of plot and as per the agreement, the total consideration accruing to the assessee came to Rs. 1,83,75,000/-. The total capital gain on such transaction came to Rs. 1,77,74,258/- out of which the assessee showed an amount of Rs. 11,11,785/- as long term capital gain in his return of income. The balance amount of Rs. 1,66,62,2473/- was added back to the income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 30.12.2010, Annexure A.1. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 01.08.2011, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) upheld the decision taken by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee. The assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 29.07.2013, Annexure A.3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee thereafter filed an appeal before this Court. This Court in a common judgment dated 22.07.2015 in ITA No. 200 of 2013 C.S. Atwal Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another decided the case in favour of the assessee. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 35,87,962/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide order dated 05.02.2014, Annexure A.5, for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Not satisfied with the order. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Vide