ALPABEN RAJESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(4), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 416/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 December 2017AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal decided to remit the issue of penalty correctness back to the Assessing Officer. This is to allow the assessee to present all relevant facts and receive an adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for short-term capital gains, interest income, and agricultural income. The assessee failed to provide any explanation before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty imposed due to the assessee's failure to furnish explanations for the quantum additions made. The tribunal also considered the precedent set in a similar co-owner's appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH AHMEDABAD

Hearing: 09.11.2017Pronounced: 18.12.2017

PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against the CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad’s ex parte order dated 16.12.2014 in case no. CIT(A)- 7/74/13-14, affirming Assessing Officer’s action imposing penalty of Rs.12,52,638/-, in proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that both the lower authorities have levied the impugned penalty in assessee’s case on account of three quantum additions of

ITA No. 416/Ahd/15 [Alpaben R. Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 - Rs.6,37,500/-, Rs.53/- and Rs.615138/- of short term capital gains on account of sale of land, interest income and agricultural income; respectively made in assessment order dated 28.09.2012. The same have already attained finality. The Assessing Officer thereafter has imposed the impugned penalty on account of assessee’s failure in filing any explanation at all in the instant proceedings. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) as well who has confirmed the above levy of penalty.

3.

It is evident from the case file that the above main quantum addition of short term capital gains arose on account of the fact that the assessee and other co- owners had sold seven equal shares than eight in all in the relevant capital asset resulting in the above addition being made in the course of assessment. Both the parties state in the course of hearing that we have heard another co-owners’ penalty appeal ITA No.45/Ahd/2015 on 08.11.2017 in case of Pritiben Manibhai Patel wherein the issue is to be remitted back as both of them have to place on record all relevant facts before the Assessing Officer. The said appeal has been accepted for statistical purposes in other words. We therefore follow the very course of action herein as well to restore the instant issue of correctness of the impugned penalty before the Assessing Officer to be adjudicated afresh after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes.

[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 18th day of December, 2017.]

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 18/12/2017

S.K.SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee

ITA No. 416/Ahd/15 [Alpaben R. Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 - 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।

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 →