SHIV HARI M. HALAN,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O.13(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6942/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 August 2016AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are separate from quantum proceedings and that an estimated addition on account of denial of agricultural income cannot be a sound basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed agricultural income from their holding, but the Revenue Authorities did not find the claimed amount justified. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied solely based on an estimated addition of agricultural income when the agricultural holding is undisputed.

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, MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR.

Hearing: 16.08.2016Pronounced: 23.08.2016

ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M:

This appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai, dated 03.08.2012 for A.Y. 2006-07 on following grounds:

A.Y. 06-07 [Shiv Hari M. Halan] Page 2 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) levying a penalty of Rs.2,0 1,623/- is invalid and bad in law.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and confirming the penalty levied of Rs.2,01 ,623/- u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the I .T. Act.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and confirming the penalty levied of Rs.2,0l,623/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT. Act although there has been neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.”

2.

Issue in this case is regarding agricultural income. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has agricultural holding and the only dispute is with regard to the income thereof. Assessee has claimed certain amount of income which according to the Revenue Authorities in quantum proceedings was not found justified. There is settled legal proposition that penalty proceedings and quantum proceedings are separate things. Penalty is not automatic on the basis of quantum addition. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee has claimed certain agricultural income out of his undisputed agricultural holding which has not been fully accepted by Revenue Authorities and Assessing Officer had levied penalty of Rs.2,01,623/- u/s.271(1(c) which was confirmed by the CIT(A). In some substance penalty has been levied for not accepting the agricultural income out of agricultural holding of the assessee so assessee declared certain agricultural income which was not accepted by Revenue Authorities. It is nothing but addition by way of estimation. The estimated addition on A.Y. 06-07 [Shiv Hari M. Halan] Page 3 account of denial of agricultural income, out of undisputed agricultural holding, cannot be sound basis for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c). So, taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, penalty in question is directed to be deleted.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 23rd day of August, 2016.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai: Dated 23/08/2016 True Copy Prabhat kesarwani आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 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, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

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

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 →