KAPIL SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1419/DEL/2019Status: FixedITAT Delhi06 July 2022AY 2010-114 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?

Since the quantum addition was deleted by the ITAT, there was no basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed consideration received from the sale of agricultural land. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition by disregarding this claim. Subsequently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition made by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by the appellate tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Hearing: 06/07/2022Pronounced: 06/07/2022

ORDER

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-26, New Delhi dated 17.12.2018 pertaining to A.Y.2010-11

2.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act.

3.

The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 28.03.2013 framed u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. The assessment was completed by disregarding the claim of the assessee that the consideration received by him was out of sale of agricultural land. Addition of Rs.19658868/- was made.

4.

The quarrel relating to the quantum addition travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal by a consolidated order dated 30.09.2021 in has deleted the addition made by the AO. The relevant finding of this Tribunal read as under :-

15.

There is another aspect of the matter that the Land Revenue Authorities had recorded a finding that physical possession was not handed over as the consolidation proceedings were not completed. The ordinary corollary of such findings would be that no transfer of land took place which is self-contradictory for the stand of the Assessing Officer for charging capital gain tax on transfer of land. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidences to rebut the claim of the assessee that the land in question was being used for agricultural purposes, and the evidences as supplied by the assessee not being found to be false and fabricated, we are unable to sustain the findings of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (supra); judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-II v. Siddharth J.Desai

(supra) and more particularly, the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DLF United Ltd. vs CIT [1986] 158 ITR 342. Wherein it has been held character of land being agriculture did not change by mentioning in revenue records as ‘Ghair Mumkin’. We therefore hereby, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. xxxxx

60.1. The facts and grounds are identical in this year as well in relating to Assessment Year 2010-11.

60.2. Ld. representatives of the parties have adopted the same arguments as were addressed in (Assessment Year 2010-11) [supra].

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and 61. also perused the material available on record. Since no change into facts and circumstances have been pointed by the Revenue, we therefore, taking the consistent view, the grounds raised in this appeal are also allowed. Our finding in for Assessment Year 2010-11 would apply mutatis mutandi to the identical grounds raised in this year as well.

5.

Since the quantum addition stands deleted by the aforementioned order of the Tribunal there is no basis for the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the penalty so levied. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

6.

Decision announced in the open court on 06.07.2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →