Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow
Dy. Cit(Exemption), Lucknow vs Moradabad Development Authority, ... on 11 January, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH "A", LUCKNOW
BEFORE SHRI A.D JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.451/LKW/2017
A.Ys. 2012-13
DCIT(Exemptions), Vs. M/s. Moradabad Development Authority,
Lucknow Kanth Road,
Moradabad.
PAN AAJFM 7731 M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri C.K. Singh, DR
Respondent by Shri None
Date of hearing 10/01/2019
Date of pronouncement 11/01/2019
ORDER
PER: A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT:
This is Department's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, taking the following sole effective ground:
"1. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and facts by allowing the ground no.12 of appeal of the assessee which relates to initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, whereas the denial of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), Moradabad in this case itself."
2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice through RPAD, which has not been returned unserved. Finding that the matter can be disposed of in the absence of the assessee, we are doing so.
2ITA No. 451/Lkw/2017
3. The ld. CIT(A), while allowing the assessee's grounds that the AO had erred in initiating proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, has observed as follows:
"8. Ground No.12 relates to initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), which may not be proper in the light of denial of exemption since denial of exemption cannot be considered within the purview section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, this ground is allowed."
4. Heard. It is the case of the Department that since the ld. CIT(A) has himself confirmed the denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee, he erred in holding the AO to have gone wrong in initiating the proceedings against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
5. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act provides for levy of penalty if the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, the simple fact is that the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act has been denied, which denial has been confirmed by the ld. CIT also. Now, denial of exemption claimed cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to amount to either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. The Department has not been able to refute this position. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) cannot be said to have erred in observing that denial of exemption cannot be considered within the purview of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, finding no error in this regard in 3 ITA No. 451/Lkw/2017 the impugned order, the same is confirmed and the grievance sought to be raised by the Department is rejected as without merit.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 11/01/2019) Sd/- Sd/-
(T.S. Kapoor) (A.D. Jain)
Accountant Member Vice President
Aks -
Dtd. 11/01/2019
Copy of order forwarded to:
(1) The appellant (2) The respondent
(3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A)
(5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File
By order
Assistant Registrar