BADRIKESHWAR CO OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(1)(3), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished full particulars of income and there was no conscious act of concealment. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the penalty was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a housing cooperative society, received income from a mobile company for terrace usage. The AO and CIT(A) treated this as business income and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for change in the head of income.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the assessee has disclosed all particulars but disputed the head of income, and if the principle of mutuality applies to such receipts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM
O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Mumbai, dated 4-10-2013, for the assessment year 2005-06, in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act.
Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The assessee is a housing cooperative society. The assessee has shown the receipt from mobile company, in income and expenditure account and surplus of this account has not been considered/offered as income on the principal of mutuality. The AO and also CIT(A) has treated the receipts from allowing the terrace to be used or installing telecommunications network as business income. The assessee’s contention is regarding treating the receipt as income from property and allowing the allowance 2 was declined by the lower authorities. For the change in head of income, the AO levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
Ld. AR placed on record order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, wherein under similar circumstances, the penalty so levied for change of head of income was deleted by the Tribunal after observing that assessee has furnished its full particulars of income. The precise observation of the Tribunal in case of Jolly Highrise Co-op HSG Society Ltd., ITA No.6521/Mum/2009, dated 30-07-2010, was as under :- “5. In our opinion, nothing has been withheld by the assessee in respect of the particulars. At the first instant, the assessee tried to make out a claim that the entire rental income is exempt on the concept of mutuality. Thereafter, he made out a claim that the entire income is to be assessed as income from house property. But both the claims of the assessee have been negated. The A.O brought to tax the entire rental income/license fee under the head 'income from other sources'. As per the facts before us only controversy was in respect of the head of income under which the income is to be assessed. We do not find that any conscious act on the part of the assessee for concealing the particulars of income. In our opinion, there is no justification to support the penalty order passed by the A.O u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty upon the assessee. Accordingly, the penalty order is cancelled and the penalty is deleted.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.”
As the facts and circumstances of the instant case are similar to the facts considered by the Tribunal in the above case, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we direct the AO to delete the penalty so imposed.
In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026