Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ito, Ward, Parwanoo vs Blue Coast Infrastructure Development ... on 17 May, 2021
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ "ए" , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH "A", CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा य एवं ी महावीर %संह, उपा य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 289/Chd/2020 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The I.T.O., बनाम Blue Coast Infrastructure Development Ltd., Ward-Parwanoo. 7, Shopping Complex, Sector-1, Parwanoo, Distt.-Solan.
थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCM 4010 E
अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent
राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT-DR
नधा "रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv.
सन
ु वाई क तार&ख/Date of Hearing : 17/05/2021 उदघोषणा क तार&ख/Date of Pronouncement : 17/05/2021 आदे श/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 24/01/2020 of Ld. CIT(A), Shimla, H.P. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal.
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.
CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 10,44,93,793/- levied by the A.O. U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that since the quantum addition has been deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT, penalty levied cannot be sustained.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.
CIT(A) has ignored the facts of the case that since the land in question has been treated as a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. penalty has been levied on the quantum addition made as long term capital gain.
3. It is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. restored.2
ITA 289/Chd/2020 ITO Vs Blue Coast Infrastructure Development Ltd.
4. The Appellant craves leave to add any other ground of appeal which may arise at the time of hearing."
2. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset has stated that the quantum addition on the basis of which the impugned penalty was levied by the A.O. has been deleted by the ITAT vide order dated 11/12/2019 passed in ITA No. 652/Chd/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied by the A.O. U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act). Reliance was placed on the judgment mentioned of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders and Anr. Vs ACIT reported in (2004) 265 ITR 562.
3. In her rival submissions, the ld. CIT-DR, although supported the order of the A.O. but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is noticed that the quantum addition on the basis on which, the impugned penalty was levied by the A.O. has been deleted by the ITAT Chandigarh Bench vide order dated 11/12/2019 passed in ITA No. 652/Chd/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09, therefore, the addition on the basis of which the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the A.O. is not in existence, therefore, penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the A.O. was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A).
5. On a similar issue, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Builders and Anr. Vs ACIT reported in (2004) 265 ITR 562 held as under:
"Where the additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled. Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand if the assessment itself is set aside."3
ITA 289/Chd/2020 ITO Vs Blue Coast Infrastructure Development Ltd.
6. We, therefore, by following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid referred to case, are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the impugned penalty. We do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and we uphold the same.
7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/05/2021) Sd/- Sd/-
महावीर %संह, एन.के.सैनी, (MAHAVIR SINGH) (N.K. SAINI) उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT Date: 17/05/2021 *Ranjan
आदे श क त,ल-प अ.े-षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent
3. आयकर आय/ ु त/ CIT
4. आयकर आय/ ु त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)
5. -वभागीय त न4ध, आयकर अपील&य आ4धकरण, च7डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH
6. गाड फाईल/ Guard File