AKBARALI PORBUNDERWALLA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1425/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 December 2016AY 2006-073 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 held that since the addition in the quantum appeal, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted, the penalty could not survive. Therefore, the AO was directed to delete the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) on capital gains arising from the sale of land. The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A) despite the assessee claiming the land was not sold by them. The Tribunal had previously deleted the addition made by the AO in the quantum appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the addition on which it was levied has been deleted in the quantum appeal. The issue also involved the taxability of capital gains under Section 50C on land allegedly not sold by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam Jadhav
For Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru

Date of hearing : 08-12-2016 Date of order : 21 -12-2016

O R D E R

Per ASHWANI TANEJA, AM:

1.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [hereinafter called CIT(A)] dated 11-12-2013 passed against the penalty order of the AO u/s 271(1)(c) dated 30-03-2012 for A.Y 2006-07 on the following ground:-

“1. The Learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on taxing of capital gains u/s 50C Rs.54,37,010/- for sale of land which was not sold by the Appellant.”

2.

During the course of hearing, it was stated by the Ld. Counsel that penalty was levied on the taxability of capital gains u/s 50C for Rs.54,37,010/- on account of sale of land which was stated to be not sold by the assessee during the year. In the quantum appeal, the addition made by the AO has been deleted by the Tribunal vide its order dated 25- 08-2016 in ITA No.5721/Mum/2010.

3.

Per contra, the Ld. DR did not dispute the submissions made by the assessee. 4. We have gone through the order passed by the lower authorities as well as order passed by the Tribunal in quantum appeal. It is noted that the Tribunal in the quantum appeal has deleted the addition by observing as under:- “4. We have heard the argument advanced by the learned representative of the parties and perused the record. The bone contention of the assessee is that the income from the land is not liable to be taxed twice. The assessee has shown the land with M/s Sharp Constructions Co. wherein the income from the land was assessed by the Assessing Officer by virtue of order dated 26.12.2008 for the A.Y.2006-07. The said order was also challenged before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of Assessing Officer by virtue of order dated 05.01.2010. Subsequently, the matter went up before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai who also decided the case in for A.Y.2006-07. The said order perused which clearly speaks about the assessment of the income with regard to the land belonging to the M/s. Sharp Constructions Co. in question. The Assessing Officer has also assessed the income upon the said land on account of alienation by the Akbarali A. Porbunderwalla to M/s. Landline Builders Pvt. Ltd. by virtue of development deed registered on 23.08.2005 for a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- again by treating the land belonging to Akbarali A. Porbunderwalla individually. Now it is not in dispute that the land has been assessed twice one on the part of M/s. Sharp Construction Co. which is the partnership firm and the other on behalf of the individual Akbarali A. Probunderwalla. The land was used for the purpose of the firm. The said consideration to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- was assessed twice one on the part of the M/s. Sharp Construction Co. and Akbarali A. Porbunderwalla individually. It is the case of double taxation because the alienation of the land has been assessed two times which does not seem justifiable. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue and set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on the above said issues.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed.”

5. Thus, when the quantum itself has been deleted, the penalty levied on this amount cannot survive any more. Thus, we direct the AO to delete the penalty also.

6.

As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in the open court at the conclusion of the hearing.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →