ITO WARD - 2(1), GHAZIABAD vs. WINDSOR & NOVA APARTMENT OWNER ASSOCIATES, GHAZIABAD
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?
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
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.
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.
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/-.
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.
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/-.
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.
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)
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1195/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1194/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1193/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Laxmi Narain Kesarwani, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circle-20, New DelhiITA 4432/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Laxminarain Kesarwani, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circel-20, New DelhiITA 4431/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026