SHRI NARESHKUMAR K. DHOLIYA,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCL-9, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2537/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 January 2018AY 2010-113 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?

The Tribunal held that the addition was a result of the deeming fiction under Section 50C and not due to misrepresentation or inaccurate particulars by the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for an addition made under Section 50C. The penalty was levied on the same grounds as in the assessee's wife's case.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when addition is made due to the deeming fiction of Section 50C, and not on account of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.2537 /AHD/2014
ITA No. 2384/AHD/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT Before Shri C.M.GARG, Judicial Member, and Shri O.P. MEENA, Accountant Member ITA No.2537 /AHD/2014/SRT Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Nareshkumar K Dholiya, A 301, Indraprash Appt. Opp Nagina Wadi, Sumul Dairy, Surat 395004_ (Appellant) P.A: No. AGPPD889OC ACIT , Circle 9, Surat TI Vs. Respondent Assessee by Shri Viresh I Rudalal CA Revenue by Shri 0 P Meena Sr . DR Final Date of Hearing: 23/01/2018 Date of Order: 29/01/2018 HT8 L ORD ER Per Shri C MGarg_JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) V, Surat, dated 12.08.2014 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2 Although the assessee has raised as many as four grounds of appeal but except ground no. 1 other grounds are argumentative and supportive to the main ground which reads as under: a) That the CIT (A) erred in confirming huge penalty u/ s 271(1)(c) for addition of deemed income u/ s 50C.

2.

Shri Nareshkumar K Dholiya ITA No.2537/4/2014 / SRT 3 We have heard arguments from both the sides and carefully perused the material placed on the record of the Tribunal. The Ld_ Assessee's Representative (AR) drawing our attention towards order of ITAT, Camp at Surat dated 07/03/2017 in present assessee's wife case i.e_ ITA No. 2384/AHD/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11 submitted that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been cancelled by the Tribunal: The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty in the present case has been levied on the identical facts and circumstances therefore, in view of the Tribunal order passed in assessee's wife case penalty is not sustainable and hence, the same may kindly be cancelled. 4 _ The Ld_ Departmental Representative (DR) strongly supported the penalty order as well as first appellate order and submitted that the assessee should have shown capital gain as per stamp valuation therefore, assessee has concealed his particulars of income. However , he could not controvert that in the identical facts and circumstances penalty imposed in the case of assessee 8 wife hes been deleted by the Tribunal order (Supra) 076 5 On careful consideration of above submissions and perusal of the Tribunal order dated 07 /03/2017 (Supra) in the case of wife of assessee Smt Manisha N Dholiya, we note that, on the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 50C of the Act in the identical facts &nd circumstances pertaining to the 1/4 share of the wife, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty 3 Shri Nareshkumar K Dholiya ITA No.2537/4/2014/SRT imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the act by observing that the sale consideration has been replaced by virtue of deeming fiction provided in section 50C, and accordingly, long term capital gain was computed. The addition is as a result of application of provision of law and not on account of misrepresentation Or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income at the end of the assessee_ Therefore , we allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty: 6 In the result appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the 0en court on 7/01/2018 - (C.M: Gatg) JUDICIAL MEMBER (O.P. Meena) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER faih /Dated '22 January, 2018 Nhanu/LDC Copy to: Assessee/AO/Pr: CIT / CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/ Guard file. By order 03 Ihs St Private-Secretary, Surat 75,07R Q1nT &11 ^747TT gaa; V

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 →