SMT. SHOBHA LAKSHMAN,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 198/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 March 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but admittedly imposed penalty for concealment of income, on which no separate proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the penalty is not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was selected for 'Complete Scrutiny' due to large investment in property compared to total income. The Assessing Officer made additions for Long Term Capital Gain and un-explained investment, and initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed for concealment of income is sustainable when the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 143(3),Section 274,Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, BENGALURU BENCH

Before: SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, AM

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CA, Shri Subramanian S., JCIT
For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT
Hearing: 21.03.2024Pronounced: 22.03.2024

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.12.2023, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2013-14.

Smt. Shobha Lakshman 2. In the instant case, the Assessee by filing its return of income for the Assessment Year under consideration on 31.3.2014 declared its total income as Rs.2,66,000/-. The case of the Assessee was selected by CASS for ‘Complete Scrutiny’ for variation in large investment in property as compared to total income. The Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) by considering the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act by the Assessee, vide assessment order dated 18.2.2010 u/s. 143(3) of the Act ultimately made the additions of Rs.2,43,72,000/- and Rs.25,18,335/- respectively on account of Long Term Capital Gain and un-explained investment. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and consequently issued notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately vide penalty order dated 28.6.2019 imposed the penalty for concealment of income.

3.

The Assessee filed appeal before the ld. Commissioner against the imposition of penalty but despite of granting various opportunities to furnish the details, the Assessee failed to avail the same and in fact without any reason made no compliance hence, the Assessee do not deserve any leniency. However considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, as the limb (for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated, infact not culminated into levy of any penalty but infact the AO admittedly imposed the penalty on a different limb (for concealment of income) on which no penalty proceedings have been initiated, therefore, the penalty imposed/levied by the AO and affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner, is not sustainable, hence the same is deleted.

4.

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on the 22nd day of March, 2024, as per Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →