INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD1(3), JALANDHAR vs. SH. RAJESH MAYUR, JALANDHAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.400/ASR/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income-tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajesh Mayor, Ward-1(3), M/s Mayor & Co., Jalandhar. G.T. Road, Jalandhar. PAN: ACGPM7469P (Appellants) (Respondents)

Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Vijh, CA Department By : Shri S.S. Negi

Date of Hearing : 19.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : .02.2018

ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 19.04.2017, deleting the penalty of

ITA No.400/ASR/2017

Rs.16,11,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the

Assessment Year 2010-11.

income of Rs.54 lac in his return under the head ‘Income from other

sources’, which was claimed as not chargeable to tax. On being called

upon to furnish the details of such income, the assessee submitted that

the same is in respect of damage/compensation in respect of the property

to be purchased for which the seller refused to have the registry done.

Relying on certain decisions, it was argued on behalf of the assessee that

the amount was not chargeable to tax, being a capital receipt. The

Assessing Officer made addition for the said sum by treating it as a

short-term capital gain and, thereafter, penalty was imposed with

reference to such addition. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty. The

Revenue is aggrieved against the deletion of penalty.

record, it is observed that the quantum proceedings came up for

ITA No.400/ASR/2017

consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order, whose

relevant part has been reproduced in the impugned order, has deleted the

addition made by the Assessing Officer. Nothing has been brought on

record to demonstrate that such finding of the Tribunal has been

reversed or modified in any manner. In view of the fact that the bedrock

for the imposition of the penalty, being the addition of Rs.54 lac, ceases

to exist, in our considered opinion, the ld.CIT(A) cannot be faulted with

for deleting the penalty. We, therefore, countenance the impugned order

on this score.

The order pronounced in the open court on 20.02.2018.

Sd/- Sd/-

[N.K. CHOUDHRY] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

Dated, 20th February, 2018. dk

ITA No.400/ASR/2017