Y.P. PUNJ FAMILY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7614/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 October 2015AY 2006-073 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 penalty cannot be levied on a protective assessment. Since the income was already offered and assessed on a substantive basis in the hands of the individual, it could not be considered concealment or inaccurate particulars in the hands of the trust assessed protectively.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a family trust, leased a property and sub-let it. The AO treated this as a colourable device to transfer income from an individual (Shri Y P Punj) to the trust, making a protective addition in the trust's hands. The AO also made a substantive addition in the individual's hands.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied on income assessed on a protective basis when the same income is assessed substantively in the hands of another assessee?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 64

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta

आदेश ORDER अिमत शु�ला, �या. स.: PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM:

1.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 31.10.2013 passed by CIT(A)-26, Mumbai- 26, in relation to penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee is mainly aggrieved by levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for sum of Rs. 24,353/-. In this case, the penalty has been levied on the assessee on the addition made on protective basis. The substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Y P Punj.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is family trust which has taken the property on lease from Shri Y. P. Punj at monthly rent of Rs. 5,45,250/- from 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2006. The property so taken on lease has been sub-let to HDFC. As per

2 Y P Punj Family Trust HDFC Bank dated 15.09.2004, the monthly lease rent of Rs. 2,24,640/- plus Rs. 1,49,768/- for 33 months with an advance deposit of Rs. 22,46,400/- for a Total area 2340 sq. ft. and other property was given on rent to Sony Mony Electronics Ltd. for a monthly rent of Rs. 3,52,800/- and advance deposit of Rs. 35,28,000/-. The AO held that, this trust is nothing but a colourable device of transferring the income from the hands of Y P Punj to the family trust. He thus added the income on substantive basis in the hands of Shri Y P Punj and in the case of assessee, i.e. Y.P. Punj Family Trust on the protective basis.

3.

Before us, it has been submitted that in the case of Y.P. Punj, the trust income has already been clubbed u/s 64 and rental income has been offered on substantive basis in his hand. Once that is so, we are unable to understand why the penalty on protective assessment has been levied. There can be protective assessment but there cannot be protective penalty, because there is no assessed income which can be treated as concealed income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income. Before us, the Ld. Counsel has cited following decision in support of the contention no penalty can be levied on protective basis :-

CIT v Super Steel (Sales) Co. 178 ITR 451(Cal) Metal Stores vs CIT 186 ITR 612(Gau) ITO vs Miss Vasudha Bajoria 40 ITD 414(ITAT-Kol) CIT v Smt. Durgawati Singh 234 ITR 249(All)

Whereas, the Ld. DR has strongly relied upon the order of the CIT(A).

4.

On the perusal of the impugned order and facts and materials on record, we find that both the authorities have discussed in detail, the colourable device but failed to understand that, once an income has already been offered and assessed on 3 Y P Punj Family Trust substantive basis in the case of the individual assessee, then how it becomes concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in the case of a person where income has been assessed on a protective basis. Thus, penalty levied on protective basis in the case of the assessee stands deleted.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th October, 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 →