FRANCIS LISTON,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NONCORPORATE WARD 2(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 673/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 November 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was unable to provide a valid reason for not imposing the penalty. The CIT(A) correctly upheld the penalty amount of Rs. 8,070/-, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with that order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which upheld a penalty imposed by the AO. The penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) for wrongly claiming a deduction under Section 24(b) related to a leased property, which resulted in an addition to income. The assessee argued that the self-lease scheme was withdrawn before the relevant period.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for claiming an incorrect deduction under Section 24(b) was justified, and if the CIT(A) correctly upheld the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(c),Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 24(b),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, KOCHI

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Appellant: Shri Francis Liston
For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal. Snr DR
Hearing: 29/10/2025Pronounced: 24/11/2025

O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter called ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, the “the Act”), date of order 22/07/2025 for Assessment year 2011-12. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Non-Corp. Ward-2(1), Kochi (for brevity, the “Ld. AO”) passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 19/08/2016.

2 ITA 673/Coch/2025 Francis Liston 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return u/s 139(1) of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and the assessee filed the return of income declaring the same total income as was declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Ld.AO during the assessment proceedings found that the residential property owned by the assessee is leased out to the company under the self lease scheme and the assessee was in receipt of lease rent for the period relevant to A.Y. 2011-12. In return, the company allotted the same to the assessee as rent free accommodation. Such house will not be treated as self occupied house for purpose of claiming the deduction u/s 24(b) because the occupation of house is not owned by the assessee himself. Accordingly, the deduction claimed u/s 24(b) was duly added back with the total income of the assessee and assessee wrongly claimed loss under the head “Income from house property” of Rs.71,605/- as against the income of Rs.6,751/-. The said assessment order was challenged before the Ld.CIT(A). But the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on merit. Further, the Ld.AO issued the penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, which amounted to Rs. 8,070/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by challenging the penalty order. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us.

3.

We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The assessee filed the statement of facts and stated that the self lease scheme was duly withdrawn from 10/07/2010, so the assessee is the owner of the said property. Further, he also stated that the quantum addition was challenged before the ITAT, but no such order is passed yet, as there is no document submitted by the assessee in support of his claim. The quantum is 3 ITA 673/Coch/2025 Francis Liston already dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is unable to explain the reason for non-imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) correctly upheld the penalty amount of Rs.8,070/-. We are not interfering in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24 /11/2025.

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 →