Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH : Hyderabad
Before: Shri S.S. GODARA & Shri L.P. SAHU
./2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri Ravindra Reddy Katta vs. ITO, Ward 3 Warangal Warangal [PAN: APHPK9602E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri G. Manikya Prasad, AR For Revenue: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR Date of Hearing : 19/04/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 24/06/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M.
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 arises against the CIT(A)-3 Hyderabad’s order dated 12.03.2019 passed in case no.10390/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’].
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It is seen that there is a delay of 53 days in filing asessee’s instant appeal. He has filed application for condonation of delay explaining reasons that the same is neither intentional nor wilful but on account of circumstances beyond control. We quote Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst.Katiji & others, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and university of Delhi vs Union of India Civil appeal no. 9488 & 9489/2019 dt. 17.12.2019, that such a delay supported by cogent reasons deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly condone the delay and proceed with the case.
It emerges at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have imposed sec.271(1)(c ) penalty amounting to Rs.2,49,368/- pertaining to quantum long term capital gain addition on Rs.13,70,525/- made after invoking sec.50C of the Act in assessment order dated 18.7.2017. The Assessing officer’s as well as CIT(A)’s case that assessee’s act and conduct throughout to this effect amounts to concealment of particulars of his taxable income.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions against and in support of the impugned sec.271(1)(c ) penalty. Suffice to say, we are of the opinion that once the impugned addition has been made u/s 50C by applying deeming provision that the actual price of the assessee’s capital asset was not its market price on account of the stamp price concerned, it ought not to be held by any stretch of imagination that assessee had concealed his taxable income to the corresponding effect in such an instance. Hon’ble Apex Court landmark judgement in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) has settled the law that each and every disallowance/addition made in the course of quantum does not ipso facto attract the impugned penal mechanism. We adopt the same ratio mutatis mutandis and direct the Assessing officer to delete the impugned penalty. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in Open Court on 24/06/2021.