SUDHA JAJODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 8, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2602/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 August 2019AY 2007-084 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 noted that in the assessee's own case, the additions on which the penalty was imposed had already been deleted by the ITAT in a prior quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was imposed on additions made to Long Term Capital Gains and agricultural income.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions have been deleted by the appellate tribunal. The issue also involved the treatment of long-term capital gains from agricultural land and agricultural income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 54B,Section 45,Section 48,Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “I.2”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU : JM

1.

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi on the following grounds:-

1. The CIT(A) order, confirming the penalty, levied Rs. 40,26,976/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, by the AO is bad in law, wrong on facts and against the principles of natural justice.

2. The appellant has not furnished inaccurate particulars of its income or concealed its income with the intention of suppressing the taxable income and therefore provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, are not attracted at all. 3(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the penalty of Rs. 40,20,276/- on Rs. 179,16,125/- which comprises of Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 1,78,84,855/- and Agriculture income of Rs. 31,270/-, ignoring the submissions, explanations and documents filed before him. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts in not appreciating that in the original assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 30.12.2009 of the Act deduction of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- was allowed to the appellant u/s. 54B of the Act out of total deduction of Rs. 1,78,84,855/- claimed in the return of income. The appellant had never contended that agriculture land is not a capital asset. The agriculture land was declared as capital asset and deduction u/s. 54B of the Act was claimed in accordance with section 45 r.w.s. 48 of the Act. © The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case while confirming the penalty on LTCG of Rs. 1,78,84,855/- has failed to appreciate that were a substantial question of law is admitted before High Court, it means that there is a debatable position and hence penalty cannot be levied. 4(a).The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the penalty on agriculture income amounting to Rs. 31,270/- assessed as income from other sources in the assessment order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on the grounds that the appellant has further failed to produce documentary evidences in respect of agriculture expenses incurred by the appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the explanation and documentary evidences filed by the appellant in support of agriculture income like Khasra Girdwari etc. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on law and on the facts in not appreciating the fact that the appellant at the time of filing of income tax return has already paid tax at Maximum Marginal Rate on Agriculture income at Rs. 9,381/- and has only claimed rebate of tax, of Rs. 4,754/- while computing the tax payable whereas the agriculture income of Rs. 31,270/- has already been declared in the return.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, forego or delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.

2. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience. 2

3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee, has stated that ITAT vide its order dated 28.5.2019 in quantum Appeal No. 4017/Del/2016 (AY 2007-08) has deleted the entire additions on which the penalty in dispute has been imposed. In this behalf he filed the copy of the Tribunal’s Order dated 28.5.2019 in assessee’s own case and he requested that penalty in dispute may be deleted.

4.

On the contrary, Ld. DR has not raised any serious objection on the request of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.

5.

We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that in assessee’s own case the ITAT vide its order dated 28.5.2019 in quantum appeal No. 4017/Del/2016 (AY 2007-08) has deleted the entire additions on which the penalty in dispute has been imposed, hence, the penalty in dispute will not survive. Accordingly, we delete the penalty in dispute in this appeal.

6.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13/08/2019.

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 →