M/S. KAVERI INFRASTRCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not received the Rs. 10 lakhs as the cheque bounced and a suit was filed. Therefore, there was no real income accrued to the assessee for this amount.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared sale consideration of Rs. 28,54,000/-, but the Assessing Officer added Rs. 10 lakhs for undisclosed consideration and disallowances. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty for Rs. 10 lakhs.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed when the disputed sale consideration was not actually received by the assessee and was subject to legal proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [A.Y. 2009-10] Shri Raj Kumar Vs. The I.T.O, F – 44, Pandav Nagar Ward- 36(4) Gali No. 13, 3rd Floor New Delhi New Delhi PAN : ANYPK 8149 H [Assessee] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 27.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 02.01.2018 Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Mahna, Adv Shri Ramanand, Adv Revenue by : Shri Ashima Neb, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the ld. CIT(A), New Delhi vide order dated 22.06.2017 for A.Y. 2009-10 imposing penalty in an ex party order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short].
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 36,79,790/- to the total income of the assessee against the returned income of Rs. 1,64,482/-. The addition was in respect of undisclosed sale consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs and disallowance on improvement of the plot of the land sold by the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 26.12.2012 confirmed the addition in respect of concealed consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs and the cost of improvements amounting to Rs. 1,40,000/- addition Rs. 75,400/-. The Assessing Officer thereafter imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] vide order dated 31.03.2014. Aggrieved further, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the imposition of penalty.
Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that one of the cheques amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs bounced for in-sufficient funds and therefore, the consideration was shown at Rs. 28,54,000/-. The assessee has filed a suit against the purchaser for the remaining amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. He also did not deny the consideration agreed in the sale deed. However, the ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the submissions made by the assessee and upheld the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs made u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Now the assessee is in appeal before me against the said penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee was required to declare capital gain on the sale consideration of Rs. 38,54,000/-, but he has declared the same at Rs. 28,54,000/-. The reasons for not declaring Rs. 10 lakhs as sale consideration was that cheqeu for Rs. 10 lakhs was bounced for insufficient fund and the assessee filed suit against the purchaser u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The fact of the suit against the purchaser has not been disputed by either of the authorities below and also the assessee has not received Rs. 10 lakhs as stated by the ld. counsel for the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee further stated that the sale consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs as and when received shall be declared in full and tax shall be paid accordingly. I find the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee to be convincing that there is no real income in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs has not been received so far and having declared a sum of Rs. 28.54 lakhs, the assessee has computed the capital gains. The income of Rs. 10 lakhs cannot be stated to have been accrued in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, addition so made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is directed to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 02.01.2018.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026