USHA AGRO PRODUCTS & PROPERTIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 5(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3501/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 November 2015AY 2009-102 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 the penalty was not justified as the addition under Section 50C did not constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The capital gains were assessed at a higher rate due to the applicability of Section 50C.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2009-10. The penalty was based on an addition made under Section 50C, which considered the sale consideration of land as per the stamp valuation authority.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the addition to income is solely based on the deeming provisions of Section 50C.

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 BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Shetty, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Santosh Mankoskar, D.R
Hearing: 26.11.2015Pronounced: 26.11.2015

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.03.2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The assessee in this appeal has agitated the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has stated that the impugned penalty in this case has been levied on account of addition made under section 50C of the Act taking the sale consideration of the land sold by the assessee as per the stamp valuation authority. It is apparently neither a case of concealment of particulars of income nor of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The capital gains in this case has been assessed at a higher rate because of the applicability of the provisions of section 50C of the Act. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. M/s. Fortune Hotels and Estates P. Ltd. (Bom) (H.C.) in Income Tax Appeal No.1164 of 2012 vide order dated 26.09.14.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed and the penalty imposed by lower authorities under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby ordered to be deleted.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2015.

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 →