ITO, WARD-5(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. BGSCTPL-MSKEL(JV),, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 634/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 December 2024AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA P. SINHA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum proceedings regarding the deduction under Section 80IA(4) were subsequently decided in favor of the assessee by a coordinate bench, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed a deduction under Section 80IA(4) and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The CIT(A) confirmed both the disallowance and the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the underlying claim for deduction has been allowed in quantum proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IA(4),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI NARENDRA P. SINHA

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, AR
For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.12.2024

(Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. BGSCTPL-MSKEL(JV), 2nd Floor, “MSK”, Ambawadi, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [PAN No.AAAA7618L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Devina Patel, AR Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.12.2024 24.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad vide order dated 04.12.2015 passed for A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 65,57,761/- imposed u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.

3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored to the above extent.

4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the ground before the final hearing of the appeal.”

3.

The brief facts of the issue for consideration before us is that during the course of quantum proceedings, the assessee had claimed ITO vs. BGSCTPL-MSKEL(JV) Asst.Year –2010-11 - 2– deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the asessee is not a “developer” but a contractor who worked under the control of Airport Authority of India. The order of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer, was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A).

4.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid penalty order confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that now the issue regarding grant of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act has been decided in favour of the assessee for the impugned assessment year in & 828/Ahd/2016 and & 830/Ahd/2016 for A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 vide order dated 07.11.2024. Therefore, since the quantum proceedings have now been decided in favour of the assessee, there is no basis for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The order passed by ITAT dated 07.11.2024 has been produced before us for our records. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the order for ready reference:

“9.13 All these documents filed by the assessee which are part of record, contentions raised before us as well case laws relied upon the assessee, clearly point out that the assessee is a developer and not merely works contractor and is eligible and entitled' for deduction u/s. 80-IA(4) of the Act. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee, we hold that the assessee is a developer within the meaning of section 80-IA(4) and is eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IA(4).Thus, we allow the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IA(4). We order accordingly.

10.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in for assessment year 2010-11 stands allowed.”

5.

Since, the quantum proceedings have been decided in favour of the assessee, we hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not liable to be sustained.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 24/12/2024

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA P. SINHA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 24/12/2024 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 80IA(4)

All 475 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →