ITO WARD - 2(1), GHAZIABAD vs. WINDSOR & NOVA APARTMENT OWNER ASSOCIATES, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1692/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 August 2022AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) who passed the order did not have the correct jurisdiction over the assessee's case. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the appropriate CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer treated maintenance charges received by the assessee society as income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the principle of mutuality, citing acceptance in a subsequent year. The AO also levied penalties under Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the jurisdiction of the CIT(A) to pass the order. The secondary issue concerned the taxability of maintenance charges and the validity of penalties.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarShri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Solanki, CA
For Respondent: Shri M. Barnawal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.07.2022Pronounced: 12.08.2022

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: These appeals have been filed by the revenue against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 28.06.2018.

2.

The AO treated the maintenance charges received by the assessee society as income of the assessee for the instant year. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the grounds that in the next year, the Assessing Authority have accepted the principle of mutuality and held that the assessee was eligible for the benefit of doctrine of mutuality and no demand was raised on the similar issue.

3.

The AO levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee being infructuous as the assessee has already deposited the penalty of Rs.10,000/-.

4.

The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.1,71,855/- on the grounds that the addition has been confirmed to that extent.

5.

The AO allowed the subscription fees invoking the doctrine of mutuality and taxed the amounts received of Rs.6,60,000/- on disposal of waste and advertising income. The ld. CIT(A) enhanced the addition to Rs.6,69,783/-.

6.

At the outset, the ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A), Noida do not exercise the jurisdiction over the cases of Ghaziabad, the appeals ought to have been passed by ld. CIT(A) who has the jurisdiction as per the jurisdictional order of the CBDT. Hence, the matters are being remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

7.

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 12/08/2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →