THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUKTSAR vs. SH. MANPREET SINGH BADAL, MUKTSAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 616/ASR/2015Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 February 2019AY 2007-082 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the penalty was imposed on additions related to long-term capital gains. Following a High Court and Supreme Court decision, the addition was restricted, leading to a reduced tax effect below the monetary limit for appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee's representative filed a letter seeking withdrawal of the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit.

What were the issues?

Whether the tax effect in the appeal is below the prescribed monetary limit for filing an appeal before the ITAT, considering subsequent judicial pronouncements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 275(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwani Kalia, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, DR
Hearing: 20.02.2019Pronounced: 21.02.2019

Per N. S. Saini, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A), Bathinda dated 18.09.2015.

2.

At the time of hearing, the AR of the assessee has filed a letter of Deputy Commissioner of income Tax(Judl.), Bathinda dated 19.02.2019 seeking permission for withdrawal of appeal as the tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeal before the Tribunal.

3.

We find that the letter of Deputy Commissioner of income Tax(Judl.), Bathinda dated 19.02.2019 reads as under: “2. In this regard, it is stated that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed after confirmation of addition on account of long term capital gains on sale consideration received by members of Punjab Co- operative Housing Building Society Ltd. The additions

ITA No. 616/Asr./2015 2 Manpreet Singh Badal involved full amount of sale consideration accrued to the members which included monetary consideration and value of built up flat to be received by the members.

3.

The High Court in C.S. Atwal, subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, held that capital gain was exigible only on the sale consideration received by the members on actual transfer of land by the society to the developers during the year. In view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the addition was restricted to proportionate sale consideration received by the assessees on actual transfer of land to the developer during the year.

4.

In view of the above facts, the amount of penalty also has to be reduced proportionately on the amount of capital gains chargeable to tax after giving effect to the order of the Hon'ble High Court in view of provisions of Section 275(1A) of the Act. Hence, in our humble view, the tax effect in the cases gets reduced to the amounts, which are below the monetary limits prescribed in Instruction No. 3/2018 for filing of appeal before the ITAT.”

4.

In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21/02/2019)

Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. Choudhry) (N. S. Saini) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 21/02/2019 *Subodh* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

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 →