ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BHAGWAN SHRI HAMSA TRUST, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2076/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 January 2017AY 2008-094 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a false claim by furnishing inaccurate particulars as they were not entitled to the exemption. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was applicable.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust claimed exemption under Section 11 for AY 2008-09, but did not have the required registration under Section 12AA for that year. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption and levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when exemption under Section 11 is denied due to lack of registration under Section 12AA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12AA,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 RAJENDRA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

Hearing: 30.11.2016Pronounced: 04.01.2017

�थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABTB2942B (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) .. (��थ� / Respondent) Revenue by: Suman Kumar Assessee by: Shri Satish R. Mody सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 30.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 04.01.2017 आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

The revenue has filed the present appeal against the order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2008-09 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds:-

ITA No.2076/M/2015 A.Y.2008-09 “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in cancelling the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c), by concluding that assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars.

2.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in cancelling the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs.13,07,173/- on wrong claim of exemption u/s.11 of Rs.38,45,760/-, by accepting that assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars. However, vide letter dated 12.03.2012 assessee had accepted inaccurate claim of exemption on the basis of bonafide belief.

3. The appellant prays that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Mumbai be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y.2008-09 at Nil by claiming exemption u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”). However, the assessment was completed after denying exemption u/s.11 of the Act, because the assessee was not having registration certificate u/s.12AA of the Act for A.Y.2008- 09. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty in view of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty to the tune of Rs.13,07,173/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty. Feeling aggrieved, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us.

We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned 4. representative of the parties and perused the record. In all the issues the revenue has raised the point in connection with deletion the penalty by the CIT(A). It is not in dispute that the assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y.2008-09 at Rs- Nil by claiming the ITA No.2076/M/2015 A.Y.2008-09 exemption u/s.11 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the assessee was not having the registration certificate u/s.12AA of the Act for the A.Y.2008-09. The registration u/s.12A of the Act was granted to appellant w.e.f 01.04.2008 i.e. after the A.Y.2009-10. In view of the said circumstances, it is quite clear that the assessee has raised the false claim by furnishing the inaccurate particulars by claiming taxable income as Nil whereas the assessee was not entitled to claim the exemption because he was not having the registration u/s.12AAof the Act for the relevant assessment year. In brief he was not having the exemption u/s.12AA of the Act for the relevant assessment year but sought the exemption u/s.12AAof the Act for the assessment year 2008-2009 wrongly and illegally. No doubt in the said circumstances the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act is quite applicable and the law relied by the CIT(A) in his order i.e CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts [2010] 3 taxmann.com 47 is no where applicable to the facts of the present case. The CIT(A) has decided the matter wrongly and illegally therefore, the order in question is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and uphold the order of the Assessing Officer.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be Allowed.

ITA No.2076/M/2015 A.Y.2008-09

Order pronounced in the open court on 4th January, 2017.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →