ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 3(4), CHENNAI vs. TMS HAMEEDA AMINA BEEVI, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2441/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 January 2018AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the penalty was deleted for other co-owners of the same property by a coordinate bench, the penalty in this case also cannot stand. The CIT(Appeals) had rightly deleted the penalty by following the previous order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer. The penalty was imposed on the assessee for claiming deduction under Section 54B based on an admission during a survey that the land sold was urban and not agricultural.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when similar deductions were allowed for co-owners of the same property. Whether the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54B was bonafide.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 54B,Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 28.12.2017Pronounced: 05.01.2018

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai, dated 14.07.2017, for assessment year 2010-11, deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

2.

No one appeared for the assessee inspite of service of notice. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merit.

3.

Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 54 of the Act. According to the Ld. D.R., during the course of survey operation, a statement was recorded under Section 133A of the Act and it was admitted that the land sold was an urban land and no agricultural activity was carried on. Since the assessee willfully claimed deduction under Section 54B of the Act before the Assessing Officer, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On a query from the Bench, when there are 13 co-owners in respect of the very same property, out of which, 12-co-owners case was allowed by the Tribunal, why the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal could not be followed? The Ld. D.R. submitted that no doubt, in respect of 12 co-owners, this Tribunal allowed the appeal by deleting the penalty and the Ld. D.R. fairly submitted that she is leaving the matter to the decision of the Tribunal.

4.

We heard the submission of Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the relevant material available on record. The penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer on all the co-owners. In respect of other co-owners, this Tribunal by an order dated 04.05.2016, deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. In view of the decision of this Tribunal in respect of the very same property in the case of other co-owners, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer cannot stand. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty by following the order of the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

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 →