Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: empanelment :: TDS :: VAT Audit :: form 3cd :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India
 
 
Customs and Excise »
  Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 21st October, 2016
 Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 21st October, 2016
 Seeks to amend Notification No. 27/2014-Central Excise
 Government doubles limit of excise duty evasion for arrest and prosecution
 Excise duty evasion limit to warrant arrest revised to Rs 2 crore
 Guidelines for launching of prosecution in relation to offences punishable under the Customs Act, 1962
 GST notification triggers uncertainty over excise duty
 Preparing for GST: govt looking at restructuring excise/customs cadre
 Refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) under Deemed Exports where Duty has been paid from CENVAT Credit and ab-initio waiver is not available.
 CBEC directs customs officials for random search of vessels
 Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 7th July, 2016

Income Tax Officer,Ward-27(2), Room NO.1909, E-2, Dr. S.P.M.Civic Centre, Minto Road,New Delhi-110002 vs M/s Tarini Developers,A-10, Mansarovar Garden,New Delhi-110015
December, 30th 2014
ITA NO. 1888 & 1889/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2006-07

                 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                      DELHI BENCH `H' NEW DELHI

          BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                            AND
          SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                           ITA No. 1888/Del/2013
                          Assessment Year: 2006-07

Income Tax Officer,               vs     M/s Tarini Developers,
Ward-27(2), Room NO.1909,                A-10, Mansarovar Garden,
E-2, Dr. S.P.M.Civic Centre,             New Delhi-110015
Minto Road,                              (PAN: AAEFT4007C)
New Delhi-110002
                        ITA No. 1889/Del/2013
                      Assessment Year: 2006-07

Income Tax Officer,                vs     Vardan Buildcon,
Ward 27(2),                               A-10C, Mansarovar Gardne,
New Delhi.                                 New Delhi.
                                           (PAN: AAFFV7307J)
(Appellant)                             (Respondent)

                    Appellant by: Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv.
                   Respondent by: Shri J.P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR


                               ORDER

PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

       These appeals have been filed by the revenue against the order of

CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi dated 3.11.2009 in Appeal No. 229/08-09 and in

Appeal No.231/08-09 pertaining to AY 2006-07.


2.     The sole ground raised by the revenue in both the appeals is similar

except quantum of penalty which reads as under:-
                                                                          1
ITA NO. 1888 & 1889/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2006-07

               "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.
              CIT(A) erred in:-
            (i) Deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax
            Act amounting to Rs.30,07,137/- imposed by AO."
3.     Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these appeals are as under:-

                   "2. Return of income was filed on 31.10.2006
           declaring business loss of Rs.6,727/-, Rs.7,182/- and
           Rs.6.224/- respectively. The AO assessed the income of the
           assessee     at     Rs.87,39,150/-,    Rs.93,18,090/-    and
           Rs.89,27,660/- after making an addition of Rs.87,45,880/-,
           Rs.93,25,2701- and Rs.89,33,8801- respectively. These
           additions were made by the AO after treating agricultural
           income declared by the assessee on sale of agricultural land
           as income under the head "Income from Business and
           Profession". The appellant had treated the profit on sale of
           land as exempt from tax on the ground that the land
           transacted in was agricultural land situated at a distance of
           more than 8 km from the limits of any municipality or
           cantonment and hence, was not a capital asset in terms of
           section 2(14) of the Act. On the other hand, the AO held that
           the transaction was a business transaction and therefore,
           the profit arising out of these transactions were business
           profits. In the penalty orders u/s 271(1)(c), the Assessing
           Officer has mentioned that "The AO rejected the attempt of
           the assessee to bring the transaction within the purview of
           income from capital gains and thereby escaped taxation by
           claiming shelter u/s. 2(14)." The appeals filed by the
           assessee's have been dismissed by the CIT(A), ITAT and
           Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The AO, therefore, initiated
           penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and issued notices to the
           appellants giving them an opportunity to explain as 10 why
           penalty u/s 271(1)( c) should not be levied on them. In
           response, the ARs of the appellants CA Surjit Singh and CA
           Samudar Jangir attended the proceedings. They impugned
           the penalty proceedings in all the three cases on the
           grounds that (i) the penalty proceedings were barred by
           limitation; (ii) the AO had not recorded satisfaction for
           initiating penalty proceedings by passing the assessment
           order; (iii) penalty proceedings are separate from
           assessment proceedings; (iv) assessees have neither

                                                                              2
ITA NO. 1888 & 1889/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2006-07

           concealed any particulars of income nor furnished
           inaccurate particulars of income; (v) the land transacted in
           was agricultural land and not a capital asset within the
           meaning of section 2(14) of the Act; and (vi) explanation 1
           to section 271(1)(c) for imposing penalty was not attracted
           since assessees had furnished an explanation which was
           bona fide and all facts relating to the same and material to
           the computation of its total income were disclosed in their
           respective returns of income. The AO, in turn, rejected each
           of the above contentions of the appellants and held that the
           appellants had furnished inaccurate particulars of their
           incomes/concealed the particulars of their incomes and
           therefore, they were liable for penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c). He
           treated the appellants as assessees in default and imposed
           individual penalties on them u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act,
           amounting to Rs.29,43,863/- (Malika Developers),
           Rs.31,38,886/- (Vardan Buildcon), Rs.30,07,137/- (Tarini
           Developers)."
4. The aggrieved assessees preferred appeals before the CIT(A) which were allowed by passing the impugned order dated 23.1.2013 and the CIT(A) directed the AO to delete respective penalties in all three appeals. Consequently, the aggrieved revenue filed three separate appeals before "H" Bench of the Tribunal with the sole ground as reproduced hereinabove. 5. We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record, inter alia assessment order, penalty order and impugned order of the CIT(A) which deleted the penalty. Ld. AR, at the very outset, submitted a copy of the decision of ITAT "E" Bench dated 30.5.2014 in Appeal No. 1890/Del/2013 for AY 2006-07 in the case of ITO vs M/s Malika Developers and submitted that the Tribunal has deleted the penalty in the case of Malika Developers and remaining two assessees viz. M/s Vardhan 3 ITA NO. 1888 & 1889/Del/2013 Asstt.Year: 2006-07 Buildcon and M/s Tarini Developers are the respondents in the present appeals. Ld. AR, drawing our attention towards operative part of the order of the Tribunal dated 30.5.2014, submitted that the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been found to be not sustainable and hence the appeal filed by the revenue in the case of M/s Malika Developers has been dismissed, therefore, the present appeals pertaining to other two assessees viz. M/s Vardhan Buildcon and M/s Tarini Developers also deserve to be dismissed as the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, therefore, present appeals should also be dismissed in the same manner. 6. Replying to the above, ld. DR fairly admitted that the appeal of the revenue in the case of M/s Malika Developers has been dismissed by the ITAT "E" Bench vide its order dated 30.5.2014 (supra). However, ld. DR supported the penalty order and submitted that the CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the penalty on wrong premises and without any justified reason, therefore, the appeal of the revenue may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order and restoring that of the AO. 7. On careful consideration of above submissions, we observe that the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee with the following conclusion:- 4 ITA NO. 1888 & 1889/Del/2013 Asstt.Year: 2006-07 "4.15 The case of Suren Arvind Bhai Vakil Vs. ITO (2011) 137 TTJ 613 (Ahm), the Hon'ble Tribunal held that "mere rejection of claim of assessee by relying on different interpretations does not amount to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by assessee." Similarly, in the case of Dy. CIT Vs. Ajay Kumar Lal (2011) 12 taxmann.com 491 (Ahm. Trib.), the Hon'ble Tribunal held that "Mere erroneous claim or mistaken bona fide belief is no ground for levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c)". Further, in the case of ACIT Vs. Megji Mathradas (2011) 7 ITR (Trib.) 749 (Mum), the Hon'ble Tribunal held that "where assessee had disclosed full facts in connection with claim made in Return and disallowance in quantum assessment was due to different of judicial opinion between Assessing Officer and Assessee, penalty could not be levied u/s 271(1)(c)." In the case of Mahinder Siddhu Vs. ACIT (2010) 39 DTR 233 (Del Trib.), the Hon'ble Tribunal held that "in the absence of any falsity in the details submitted by the assessee regarding Computation of Income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable in respect of inadvertent wrong claim made by assessee for adjustment the Long Term Capital Loss against Short Term Capital Gains." 4.16 In the light of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs and the judicial pronouncements cited therein, I am of the considered opinion that in the instant three cases, the appellants had revealed all the particulars of the transaction in their Returns of Income. It is a different matter that additions have been made in quantum assessment, treating the profits on purchase and sale of agricultural land as business profits and not as capital gains. Since, the appellants has not shown any mala fide intentions and has not filed any inaccurate particulars of income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not imposable in these cases. Therefore, penalty is imposed in these cases u/s 271(1)(c) are hereby deleted. " 8. We may point out that ld. DR has not disputed the fact that the appellants had revealed all the particulars of transactions in their return of income of respective assessment years under consideration. We may also observe that during the quantum proceedings, the AO treated the profits on purchase and sale 5 ITA NO. 1888 & 1889/Del/2013 Asstt.Year: 2006-07 of agricultural land as business profits and not as capital gains and it is also not in dispute that the assessee filed all details pertaining to the profits on purchase and sale of agricultural land along with return of its income. Therefore, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was some malafide intention of the assessee and assessee filed inaccurate particulars of its income or has concealed particulars of its income with conscious intention to evade tax. 9. From careful reading of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1890/Del/2013 dated 30.5.2014, we observe that the Tribunal in the case of M/s Malika Developers deleted the penalty with following observations and findings:- "6. At the outset, the Ld DR submitted that additions were confirmed by ITAT and further confirmed by Hon'ble Delhi High' Court. It was submitted that assessee deliberately declared the business profit as capital gain in order to avoid taxation. Therefore, there was existence of mens rea as the assessee had deliberately furnished wrong particulars and it was submitted that the case laws relied upon by Ld CIT(A) were not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. The Ld AR on the other hand, submitted that the land was purchased with a view to earn capital gain, .the Assessing Officer had made addition on deemed basis. It was further submitted that land was situated outside the municipal limit and full particulars were furnished and there was no suppression of facts. The Assessing Officer had made addition due to difference of opinion and not because of any other reasons. 8. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the material available on record. We find that though the assessee had lost upto the High Court in the quantum proceedings yet, losing a case in quantum proceedings is not a sufficient reason for imposing penalty u/s 6 ITA NO. 1888 & 1889/Del/2013 Asstt.Year: 2006-07 271(1)( c) of the Act. The penalty proceedings u Is 271 (1 )(c) are separate proceedings distinct from the assessment proceedings and where revenue has to establish separately the existence of mens rea for imposition of penalty. The assessee had submitted full particulars regarding. sale and purchase of land and had claimed the profit as capital gain. From the particulars filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had come to know about the fact of sale of land, however, he rejected the claim of assessee and assessed the gain.' as' business income instead of capital gain as claimed by assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products has held that if complete details of transactions has been revealed by the assessee in its return of income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be imposable just because the claims of the assessee are found to be legally not allowable. The facts and circumstances of the present case are squarely covered In favour of assessee vide the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. which has been relied upon by Ld CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A)." 10. On the basis of foregoing discussion, we are in agreement with the conclusion of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal order dated 30.5.2014 that as per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (supra), if complete details of transaction has been revealed by the assessee in its return of income, then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act will not be imposable just because the claims of the assessee are found to be legally not allowable. In the instant case, the assessee furnished all particulars of purchase and sale of agricultural land which brought profit to the assessee. During the quantum proceedings, the AO treated the profit as business profit instead of capital gains as claimed by the assessee, therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be 7 ITA NO. 1888 & 1889/Del/2013 Asstt.Year: 2006-07 held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income or has concealed particulars of its income. We further hold that merely because the assessee proposed the impugned profits from sale and purchase of agricultural land as capital gain but the AO assessed the same under the head of profits and gains from business and profession, in this situation, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not imposable as in any case, it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income or has concealed particulars of its income before the AO during quantum proceedings. Thus, the CIT(A) was right in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO and we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order of the CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, sole ground in both the appeals being devoid of merits is dismissed. 11. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th December, 2014. sd/- sd/- (B.C. MEENA) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 29th December, 2014 `GS' 8 ITA NO. 1888 & 1889/Del/2013 Asstt.Year: 2006-07 Copy of order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By Order Deputy Registrar, ITAT 9
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
E-catalogue online catalogue E-brochure online brochure online product catalogue online product catalogue e-catalogue Indi

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions