Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Rahul Construction Com, Pune vs Department Of Income Tax on 29 May, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "A", PUNE
BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV,
JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos.1258 & 1259/PN/2013
(A.Ys: 2005-06 & 2007-08)
ITO, Ward-3(1), Pune Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Rahul Construction Company
Rahul Chamber, 12, Karve Road,
Pune - 411004
PAN: AAFFR2117L Respondent
Appellant by : Shri Hemant Kumar C
Lueva
Respondent by : Shri Nikhil Pathak
Date of hearing : 29.05.2014
Date of pronouncement : 29.05.2014
ORDER
PER BENCH:
Both the appeals filed by the revenue pertain to the same assessee on similar point against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II, [(in short CIT(A)] Pune for A.Ys. 2005-06 and 2007-08, so they are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience.
2. In ITA No.1258/PN/2013, the revenue has filed the appeal on the following grounds.
1. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in cancelling the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without in any manner examining the facts & evidences available on records and brought out by the Assessing Officer in the penalty orders in support of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
22. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty levied without appreciating the fact that the assessee had violated the conditions stipulated u/s.80IB(10)(a)(i) of the Act and by claiming that buildings C & D were separate housing project even though the entire project was approved by a single layout plan had concealed the income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty when the assessee had claimed wrong deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the I.T.Act, 1961 and had thereby attempted to evade tax by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing its income.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any or all the grounds of appeal.
3. The assessee is a firm engaged in construction business. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80IB(10) of I.T. Act of ₹ 1,86,92,040/-, which was rejected and consequently, the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of I.T. Act was also initiated for concealment of income and inaccurate particulars of income. Against the quantum addition, the assessee has preferred an appeal, wherein, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, wherein vide its order dated 06.07.2012, the Tribunal has set-aside the order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. Thus, the basis of penalty i.e. the addition by way of disallowance of deduction u/s.80IB(10) do not survive. In such a situation, the penalty was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). Once the basis for penalty do not survive, the penalty so imposed by the Assessing Officer, was rightly deleted by the CIT(A), which needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same.
4. A similar issue arose in ITA No.1259/PN/2013 for A.Y. 2007-
08. Facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of CIT(A), who has deleted the penalty in question on the same reasoning.
35. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Court on this the day of 29th May, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.S. PANNU) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Pune, Dated the 29 th May, 2014
GCVSR
Copy to:-
1) The Department
2) Assessee
3) The CIT(A)-II, Pune
4) The CIT-II, Pune
5) The DR, "A" Bench, I.T.A.T., Pune.
6) Guard File
By Order
//True Copy//
Senior Private Secretary,
ITAT, Pune.