Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ms. Krishna Raghu, Mohali vs Department Of Income Tax on 5 October, 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT
AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.854/Chd/2014
(Assessment Year : 2008-09)
The A.C.I.T., Vs. Ms. Krishna Raghu,
Circle 6(1), W/o Sh.D.S.Raghu,
Mohali. Village Sialba Majri,
Mohali.
PAN: ABKPR7174F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri S.K. Mittal
Respondent by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh
Date of hearing : 29.09.2015
Date of Pronouncement : 05.10.2015
O R D E R
PER RANO JAIN, A.M. :
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh dated 26.8.2014 for assessment year 2008-09, whereby he has deleted the penalty amounting to Rs.28,91,666/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that, as per the information available with the department, a Housing Society, named as The Defence Services Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Mohali consisting of 207 members was formed, which was the owner of 27.3 acres of land in Village Kansal, District Mohali. This Society entered into a tripartite joint development agreement on 27.4.2007 with M/s Hash Builders (Pvt.) Ltd., Chandigarh and M/s Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mumbai by virtue of which the society would transfer its land for development in lieu of monetary consideration and also consideration in kind to the members of the society. The assessee was also a member of the said society owning 250 sq. yards land. The total consideration was settled at Rs. 34,00,000/- plus allotment of one flat of 1350 sq. feet to the assessee, out of which the assessee had received Rs.13,60,000/-. The assessee had not declared income from capital gains earned from transfer of land and income to that extent having been held as escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the proceeding under section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated against the assessee.
3. The assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, on 16.12.2010 and the income was assessed at Rs.86,89,070/- by taking entire consideration comprising of cash amount receivable and the value of land. The value of the flat was taken at Rs.4500/- per sq.ft., which 3 was derived from the agreement dated 24.2.2007 made between HASH and THDC. The short term capital gain was determined at Rs.86,15,000/-. Accordingly, addition of Rs.86,15,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer. The order of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals) and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act stating that the assessee had committed default for concealment of particulars of income and for furnishing i n a c c u r a t e p a r t i c u l a r s o f i ncome to the tune of R s.86,15,000/-. Penalty amounting to Rs.28,91,666/- was levied by the Assessing Officer being 100% tax sought to be evaded.
4. The assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals) against the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) deleted the penalty stating that the assessee had disclosed all the material facts relating to the receipt of money on sale of plot and was under the impression that the amount received was advance money on sale of plot and capital gains tax was not leviable on this amount. The learned CIT (Appeals) was further of the view that the assessee having disclosed all material facts which were required to compute the correct capital gains establishes her bonafide credentials. In view of these, penalty was deleted by the learned CIT (Appeals).
4
5. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned CIT (Appeals), the Department has come up in appeal before us.
6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that the addition amounting to Rs.86,15,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals) was challenged by the assessee before the I.T.A.T. The I.T.A.T. confirmed the order of the learned CIT (Appeals), which was again challenged by the assessee before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in ITA No.288 of 2013 (O&M) dated 22.7.2015 referring to the judgment in the case of C . S . A t w a l V s . C I T, Ludhiana & Another in ITA No.200 of 2013 deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and further confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals) and I.T.A.T. In view of the fact that the quantum on the basis of which penalty was levied has been deleted by the Hon'ble High Court, it was submitted that the question of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not arise.
7. The learned D.R. could not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee.
8. We have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in assessee's own case in ITA No.288 of 2013 (O&M) dated 22.7.2015, which has been decided in favour of the assessee and consequently the addition made by the Assessing Officer does not stand as on date. In view of the fact that the quantum itself has been deleted, the penalty 5 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive. Further, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in deleting the penalty on the basis that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. The explanation offered by the assessee was a bonafide one, this fact also gets strengthened by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court delivered in favour of the assessee. In view of all this, we confirm the order of the learned CIT (Appeals), deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the Assessing Officer.
9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of October, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(H.L.KARWA) (RANO JAIN)
VICE PRESIDENT ACOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated : 5 t h October, 2015
*Rati*
Copy to: The Appellant/The Respondent/The CIT(A)/The CIT/The DR.
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh