DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1) (1), BARODA vs. M/S THE SPUNPIPE & CONSTRUCTION CO. (BARODA) PVT. LTD., BARODA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1651/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 January 2019AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was primarily due to the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which revised monetary limits for filing appeals, and the tax effect in this case not exceeding the revised limit. Additionally, the quantum appeal was also decided in favor of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer. The penalty was related to a deduction claimed under Section 54G for AY 2010-11.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was justified for claiming deduction under Section 54G, and whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable based on CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.D.R, Shri A. C. Shah, A.R

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Vadodara (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 24.04.2017 arising in the penalty order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2010-11.

ITA No. 1651/Ahd/17 [DCIT vs. M/s. The Spunpipe & Construction Co. (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 -

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under:-

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T. (A) was justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the A.O without appreciating that the case of the assessee was not a case of mere disallowance but willful and deliberate attempt to claim deduction u/s. 54G of the Act, with an intention to evade tax, thereby liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, since the assessee itself admitted the fact that land sold was not a land used for purpose as specified in section 54G of the Act and A.O. established that land formed part of stock-in-trade of business of "developers" carried on by the assessee and not for the business of any industrial undertaking. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T. (A) was justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the A.O without appreciating that the provision of Section 54G of the Act has to be followed in letter and spirit, with regard to year of chargeability of tax and conditions for claiming deduction u/s. 54G of the Act,, and failure to do so intentionally amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars *of income, liable for penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act.”

3.

At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the Ld.AR for the assessee that appeal filed by the Revenue is hit by recently issued CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11/07/2018 revising the previous thresholds pertaining to tax effects. As per aforesaid Circular, all pending appeals filed by Revenue are liable to be dismissed as a measure for reducing litigation where the tax effect does not exceed the prescribed monetary limit which is now revised at Rs.20 Lakhs. In the instant case, the tax effect on the disputed issues raised by the Revenue is stated to be not exceeding Rs.20 lakhs and therefore appeal of the Revenue is required to be dismissed in limine. The AR further pointed out that notwithstanding the aforesaid circular, the quantum appeal has also been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT and this penalty appeal of the Revenue does not survive. The AR referred to the decision of the co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 1883/Ahd/2014 dated 02.08.2017 in quantum proceedings for this purpose.

ITA No. 1651/Ahd/17 [DCIT vs. M/s. The Spunpipe & Construction Co. (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 -

4.

The Learned DR for the Revenue fairly admitted the applicability of the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. Secondly, penalty proceedings do not survive in view of the decision of additions/disallowances in quantum.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 29/01/2019

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 29/01/2019 True Copy S. K. SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।

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 →