SHRI JITENDRA BHAILALBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, INTL. TAXN., VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 248/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 December 2021AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable as the claim for exemption was genuine and there was no deliberate concealment. The Tribunal noted that penalty was deleted for a co-owner in identical facts.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54EC for sale of ancestral property, exceeding the permissible limit. The Assessing Officer disallowed the excess claim and levied a penalty for concealment of income. The assessee's quantum appeal was partly allowed by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the assessee makes a genuine claim for exemption under Section 54EC which is partly disallowed due to exceeding the statutory limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54EC,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Baxi, CA
For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 06.12.2021Pronounced: 09.12.2021

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the CIT(A)-13, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under :

1) The Ld. Commission of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad has erred in law and in fact in confirming the action of the ld. A.O. in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.9,49,420/- in complete disregard of law and the facts and, thus, the penalty of Rs.9,49,420/- is prayed to be cancelled.

2) Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend or substitute or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal here-in-above contained.

3.

The assessee filed return of income on 09.07.2012 declaring total income of Nil. The assessee had sold an ancestral property. The share of the assessee in this Page 2 of 3 property was 20% as the same property was held along with 4 members of his family. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 54EC amounting to Rs.78,30,660/- for Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer held that as per provisions of Income Tax Act, exemption under Section 54EC available to an assessee in relation to capital gain arising to him is maximum upto Rs.50,00,000/- if he invests within 6 months of transaction of capital assets. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee deliberately concealed the fact and shown inaccurate particulars of income in his return and hence evaded the same. The Assessing Officer, therefore, made addition of Rs.46,08,817/- on account of disallowance of claim of exemption under section 54EC of the Act. A show cause letter dated 04.01.2017 was issued requiring the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be imposed for concealment of inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer vide penalty order dated 02.03.2017 imposed penalty of Rs.9,49,420/-. In the meanwhile, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the Assessment Order (quantum appeal) which was subsequently dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 26.10.2015. The assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 22.12.2017 partly allowed the appeal of the co-owner of the property as well as assessee.

4.

Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the quantum appeal in assessee’s case was partly allowed vide Tribunal vide order dated 22.12.2017 being along with the co-owners property. The Ld. AR further submitted that in one of the co- owner’s case the penalty was deleted in respect of claim of exemption under Section 54EC of the Act (being ITA No.247/Ahd/2018 order dated 16.05.2018). Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed that the present appeal may also be allowed and penalty may be deleted/dismissed.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order, penalty order and the order of the CIT(A).

Page 3 of 3 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. In the present appeal, the penalty in respect of disallowance of claim of exemption under Section 54EC of the Act has been imposed/levied by the Assessing Officer. The claim for exemption has been made by the assessee as a genuine claim and there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars to that extent. Therefore, the provision for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act will not be applicable in the present case. Besides this, it is pertinent to note that in respect of one of the co-owner of the said property, the penalty has been deleted by the Tribunal. The facts are identical in the present case and hence the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the penalty is deleted.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 9th day of December, 2021.

More judgments on Section 54EC

All 476 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54EC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →