Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Gujarat High Court

Ahmedabad Urban Devlopment Authority vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 December, 2015

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi, Mohinder Pal

                 C/SCA/13713/2015                                             ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13713 of 2015

         ==========================================================
              AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
               DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR SN SOPARKAR, SR COUNSEL WITH MR B S SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE
         for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
                        and
                        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL

                                    Date : 08/12/2015


                                     ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. The petitioner is Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority  and has challenged the action of department of recovering  full amount of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer in  connection with the assessment year 2010­2011. 

2. Brief facts are that for the assessment year 2010­2011, the  petitioner filed return of income disclosing nil income. The  Assessing Officer however, disputed such computation  on  the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to exemption  as a charitable institution and framed scrutiny assessment  on   12.3.2013   making   addition   of   Rs.327.68   crores  (rounded   off)   and   raising   matching   tax   liabilities.   The  Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Thu Dec 10 01:35:51 IST 2015 C/SCA/13713/2015 ORDER Assessing   Officer   also   instituted   penalty   proceedings   and  passed  a final  order  of penalty  under  section  271(1)(c)  of  the   Income   Tax   on   31.3.2015     imposing   penalty   of  Rs.101.24   crores   (rounded   off).  The  petitioner   applied   for  stay   against   the   recovery   of   the   penalty.     Pending   such  application, the Assessing Officer directed to make coercive  recovery upon which this petition came to be filed.

3. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having  perused   the   documents   on   record,   what   emerges   is   that  against   quantum   addition,   the   petitioner   has   already  appealed   before   the   Tribunal.   The   Tribunal   has   granted  stay against recovery on the condition of depositing 50% of  tax dues. The appeal against quantum addition is ripe for  hearing   before   the   Tribunal.   Quite   apart   from   these  developments, it is hugely doubtful whether this would be  a case for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which  is   imposable   on   the   assessee   furnishing   inaccurate  particulars  of the income  or concealing  the particulars  of  income.   The   fact   that   the   petitioner   as   a   statutory  authority   is   engaged   in   implementing   town   planning  schemes   and   in   developing   of   Ahmedabad   urban   area   is  well  known  to the  department  and all concerns.  Whether  such activity is a charitable activity and would qualify for  exemption under section 12A of the Act and consequently  the income from such activity would be exempted from tax  under   section   2(15)   of   the   Act,   is   only   a   matter   of  interpretation.   Even   post   amendment   with   effect   from  1.4.2009,   the   petitioner's   claim   for   exemption   would   be  eligible  or not,  is purely a question  of law.  We fail to see  what   could   be   the   omission   on   part   of   the   assessee     to  Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu Dec 10 01:35:51 IST 2015 C/SCA/13713/2015 ORDER disclose    inaccurate  particulars   of   the   income   or  conceal  the particulars of income in the present case so as to invite  penalty. Facts would have to be viewed in light of ratio of  decision   in   case   of  Commissioner   of   Income­tax   v.  Reliance  Petroproducts  Pvt.   Ltd  reported   in   (2010)   322  ITR 158.

4. On   such   prima   facie   consideration,   it   is   directed   that  pending the petitioner's appeal against the order of penalty  imposed by the Assessing Officer, there shall be no coercive  recovery   of   such   penalty   demand.   Above   observations  would   not   come   in   way   of   the   department   in   defending  such order of penalty.

5. Petition is disposed of.

(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MOHINDER PAL, J.) raghu Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Thu Dec 10 01:35:51 IST 2015