MRS. SHAILAJA G TANDEL,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 4 , PANVEL

This appeal is filed by assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, [the learned CIT (A)] Pune, dated 4th October, 2019 for A.Y. 2011-12, wherein penalty levied by ITO, Ward-4, (the learned Assessing Officer) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 24th March, 2017 of ₹26,57,402/-, is confirmed.

Briefly stated facts show that return of income was filed on 20th July, 2011 at ₹5,70,669/-. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was concluded on 30th January, 2014 at a total income of ₹92,47,110/-. The addition on

The addition was upheld by the learned CIT (A) as per order dated 24th March, 2015. Against that, appeal was filed before the coordinate Bench and co-ordinate Bench passed an order dated 31st December, 2018 in wherein the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The co-ordinate Bench held that addition of short term capital gain made by the learned Assessing Officer is a long term capital gain and assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54F of the Act.

Meanwhile, the learned Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 271 (1) ( c) of the Act, as nobody attended before him, levying penalty of ₹26,57,402/- holding that assessee has concealed income from short term capital gain.

Assessee challenged the same before the learned CIT (A), who also confirmed the levy of penalty. Therefore, assessee is in appeal before us.

The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the lower authorities.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. In the present case, the land of the assessee was compulsorily acquired in 1972 and against which a plot was to be allotted to the assessee. On 15th July, 2007, letter of allotment was issued to the assessee which was transferred by tripartite agreement on 23rd February, 2011, and assessee received a consideration of ₹86 lacs. This amount was considered by the learned Assessing Officer as short term capital gain. Assessee considered it as Long term capital gain and claimed exepmtion u/s 54F of The Act. On appeal before the ITAT same was considered as long term capital gain. On this sum along with bank interest penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied. There is no satisfaction in the assessment order but merely a direction to issue notice under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The notice under Section 274 of the

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.