B. ALIM BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1151/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 August 2018AY 2005-064 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 the quantum addition on account of LTCG had been set aside by a previous ITAT order. Since the demand for LTCG no longer existed, the penalty had no basis to stand.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2005-06 declaring Nil income. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) based on an addition of long-term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 3,25,12,443/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G. S. PANNU, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

Hearing: 21.08.2018Pronounced: 29.08.2018

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 09.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the AY. 2005- 06 in which the penalty levied by the AO has been ordered to be confirmed.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “l. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on the facts and in law in accepting penalty levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income overlooking the facts that quantum is pending at tribunal and overlooking to case law. Commissioner of Income Tax V Dynamic Enterprises A.Y.2005-06 (2013) 40 taxmann.com 318 (Kar) (FB) and Electroplast Engineers V ACIT 24(3) (ITA. No. 5363/M/2014) which are in favour of appellant on same facts..”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 12.10.2007 declaring the total income to the tune of Rs.Nil. The return was filed beyond the time limit for filing of return and accordingly was ab-initio void. During the course of assessment proceedings in the case of A.Y. 2006-07, it was seen that the firm was totally different from the earlier firm & the partners were entirely different and there was revaluation of property held by the assessee which was taken over by Shri K.K. Motwani & Shri D.K. Motwani who obtained the property by taking over the firm and continuing with the same name i.e. B. Alim Builders. The said transfer had taken place during F.Y. 2004-05 relevant to A.Y. 2005-06. Thereafter, the assessment proceeding u/s 147/148 was initiated and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was a builder. There was no activity except for transfer of the revalued asset and other assets and liabilities to another concern by the same name constituted in June, 2004. The long term capital gain on the transfer assets was assessed to the tune of Rs.3,25,12,443/- and accordingly, the penalty was initiated. The assessee also received the advances in lieu of sale of the property to the tune of Rs.22,40,000/-. However, after the non-utilization of the fund, the same was returned but an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was found in the account of the assessee and the penalty was also initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. After the issuance of the penalty notice, the penalty to the tune of Rs.67,98,350/- was imposed on the basis of assessed long term capital gain to the tune of Rs.3,25,12,443/-.

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 →