M/S. PINEWOOD COMMERCIAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
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 held that since the addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed had been deleted by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalty order had no basis. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
What were the facts?
The assessee company inadvertently offered profit from the sale of a commercial property under Capital Gains instead of Business Income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition under Capital Gains, and subsequently imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by the Tribunal. The correct head of income for the sale of a commercial property.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM]
Date of Hearing : 20.11.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2017. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 29.02.2016 of CIT-(A)- 1, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2008-09.
In this appeal the assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).
The facts and circumstances under which penalty was imposed on the assessee by the AO are as follows :- The Assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing secretarial, consultancy and accounting services. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2008-09 was submitted on 28/09/2008 showing total Income of Rs. 3,55,634/-. The Assessee had purchased a commercial property situated at Westmore 11, sir Pochkanwale Road, Worli, Mumbai in the year 1987. Depreciation on the property was claimed and allowed in earlier assessment years. During the year the Assessee sold the Pinewood Commercial Ltd. A.Y.2008-09 property and acquired a new property for Rs. 1,00,79,310/-. The Assessee inadvertently offered the profits under the head Capital Gain instead of under the head Profit and Gains from Business or Profession. The Assessee rectified the mistake in the course of hearing by submitting a revised computation and offering profit of Rs 2,41,254/- under section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The profit of Rs. 2,41,254/- was duly disclosed in the revised computation. The Assessing Officer did not accept the revised computation and completed the Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27/12/2010 on the basis of original computation filed by the assessee. He made an addition of Rs. 60,05,067/- to the Income of the assessee under the head "Capital Gains" on alleged ground that the commercial premises sold by the assessee was a Capital Asset. The Assessing Officer also held that no depreciation was claimed by the Assessee for the commercial premises under section 32 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Assessee aggrieved by the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the Assessing Officer filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 19/01/2011. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by his order dt.25.1.2011.
In respect of the addition made under the head “Capital gains” the AO imposed penalty on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
At the time of hearing of this appeal it was brought to our notice by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that as against the addition of Rs.60,05,067/- made by the AO under the head “Capital gains” which was confirmed by CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal in ITA No.1028/Kol/2014. The Tribunal vide its order dated 31.07.2017 was pleased to delete the addition made under the head “Capital Gains”. Since the very addition on the basis of which penalty was imposed on the assessee by the AO has been deleted by the Tribunal, We are of the view that the order
Pinewood Commercial Ltd. A.Y.2008-09 imposing penalty has no legs to stand. The penalty imposed on the assessee is therefore cancelled and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 22.11.2017.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026