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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 400/ASR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 February 2018AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the addition made by the Assessing Officer, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared Rs. 54 lac as income from other sources, claiming it was not taxable as a capital receipt. The Assessing Officer treated it as short-term capital gain and imposed a penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the addition forming the basis of the penalty has been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CA
For Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi
Hearing: 19.02.2018

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.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee declared

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.

3.

Having heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on

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.

4.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

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

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 →