Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Turf View Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Plot No. 72B, Hornby Vellard Estate, Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Vs. I.T.O. 18(1)(2), Mumbai
June, 20th 2014
                    ""   
     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI

       ,         ,                                    
     BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM

                     ./I.T.A. No. 6309/Mum/2011
                    (   / Assessment Year: 2003-04)

Turf View Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.                    I.T.O. ­ 18(1)(2),
Plot No. 72B, Hornby Vellard Estate,      /        Mumbai
Dr. A. B. Road, Worli,                    Vs.
Mumbai-400 018
     . /  . /PAN/GIR No. AAAAT 4887 B
        ( /Appellant)                        :            (     / Respondent)

         / Appellant by                      :    Shri Nitish Gandhi

          /Respondent by                     :    Shri Maurya Pratap

                         /                   :    22.05.2014
                   Date of Hearing
                      /
                                             :    18.06.2014
           Date of Pronouncement
                                    / O R D E R
Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.:

      This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai (`CIT(A)' for short) dated 25.04.2011, dismissing the
levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act' hereinafter) for the
assessment year (A.Y.) 2003-04 vide order dated 24.03.2009.

2.    The background facts of the case are that the assessee, a co-operative housing
society's, income and expenditure (I & E) account for the relevant year was observed to
bear a credit of Rs.4,01,476/- by way of interest on bank fixed deposit/s (FD/s). The
assessee, thus, in the view of the Assessing Officer (A.O.), had claimed regular
                                              2
                                                          ITA No. 6309/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2003-04)
                                                          Turf View Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. vs. ITO







expenditure of the society against the said income, which is impermissible in view of section 57(iii), citing the decision by the apex court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. V. P. Gopinath [2001] 248 ITR 449 (SC) in support. Further, it had also claimed deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) there-against and, thus, claimed a double deduction in respect of the said income. Income was, accordingly, assessed at Rs.32,03,407/-, as against the returned income of Rs.7,13,561/-; the other two adjustments made by the A.O. being toward interest on, similarly, income-tax refund (at Rs.26,070/-) and maintenance charges (at Rs.20,62,300/-) received from mobile companies (for allowing them to use the terrace space of the society's building, for setting up the mobile relay station/s), by treating it as `income from other sources' as against `income from house property'. Penalty proceedings were also initiated. The assessee failing to furnish any explanation, penalty stood levied at Rs.7,81,153/-, i.e., at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. We are presently concerned with the bank interest of Rs.4,01,476/-, on which penalty stood confirmed by the first appellate authority, so that the assessee is in second appeal. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. We are wholly unable to appreciate the Revenue's case (PB pg. 2). The assessee's income and expenditure account shows a net surplus of Rs.7.55 lacs. As such, excluding bank interest and interest on income-tax refund, which aggregate to Rs.4.28 lacs, would still leave a positive income of Rs.3.27 lacs. How, then, we wonder could it be said that the assessee had claimed the regular society expenses against bank interest, in gross violation of section 57(iii)? As regards deduction u/s.80P(2)(d), the bank interest is only on FDRs placed with the co-operative banks, which are only co-operative societies engaged in the business of banking, so that the same is exigible to deduction u/s.80P(2)(d). Deduction there-under stands in fact allowed by the A.O. himself in assessment. What, then, is the controversy about? Rather, we observe the assessee to have claimed interest on sinking fund (at Rs.1,57,181/-) per its income and expenditure account, and which may lead to the inference of the interest income being actually less and, accordingly, an excess claim for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d). However, as afore-stated, the A.O. has himself allowed 3 ITA No. 6309/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2003-04) Turf View Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. vs. ITO
deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) at Rs.4,01,476/-. Further, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), with reference to the assessee's computation of income for the year (PB pg.1), would show us that the interest on sinking fund stands in fact suo motu disallowed by the assessee, resulting in effect to a lower claim and allowance of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d), i.e., to that extent. In fact, we also observe non-claim of any standard deduction on the rental income of Rs.20.62 lacs, so that the change of head of income in its respect by the A.O. also did not result in any change in income. The assessee has returned a taxable income, paying tax at Rs.2,21,621/-. The charge of claim of mutuality by the assessee, as made by the ld. CIT(A), and which forms the basis of his confirming the penalty, is thus untrue. Looked at from any angle, thus, the Revenue's case is without any merit. The levy of impugned penalty is accordingly directed for deletion. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on June 18, 2014 Sd/- Sd/- (Amit Shukla) (Sanjay Arora) / Judicial Member / Accountant Member Mumbai; Dated : 18.06.2014 . ../Roshani, Sr. PS /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. / The Appellant 2. / The Respondent 3. () / The CIT(A) 4. / CIT - concerned 5. , , / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. / Guard File / BY ORDER, / (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) , / ITAT, Mumbai
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting