TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessment as revised by giving effect to such order of the CIT(A) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court or the order of revision u/s 263 or u/s 264. ITAT having passed the order in appeal deleting all the additions excepting one, it is the requirement u/s 275(1A) that the Assessing Officer must pass an order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal and only thereafter consider the issue of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall consider the issue of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act after giving effect to the order of the Tribunal and after duly giving opportunity of being heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Dispute Resolution Panel (in short 'DRP') by making the following additions/disallowances: i) Disallowance towards cost of land transferred by APHB - Rs. 13,43,96,800/-. ii) Disallowance of incentive paid to IJIMI India - Rs. 18,59,85,000/-. iii) Disallowance of charges paid to IJIMI India for delay in handing over - Rs. 7,74,36,597/-. iv) Disallowance of land cost attributable to the land sold by APHB on 500 LIG houses sold by it - Rs. 1,92,19,200/-. v) Disallowance of cost of construction of houses handed over to APHB - Rs. 18,06,75,000/-. vi) Disallowance of interest paid to IJMI India - Rs. 2,21,95,301/-. vii) Adjustment u/s 92CA(4) - Rs. 38,34,39,486/-. 3. Against the aforesaid assessment order, the assessee pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance of charges paid to IJIMI India for delay in handing over - Rs. 7,74,36,597/-. 4. Disallowance of cost of construction of houses handed over to APHB - Rs. 18,06,75,000/- 5. Disallowance of interest paid to IJMI India - Rs. 2,21,95,301/-. The only addition of Rs. 1,92,19,200/- towards land cost attributable to the land sold by APHB on 500 LIG houses sold was sustained by the Tribunal. 6. The AR of the assessee bringing the said facts to the notice of the CIT(A) submitted that imposition of penalty with regard to the additions already deleted no more survives. So far as the issue of levy of penalty on the disallowance of Rs. 1,92,19,200/- sustained by the ITAT, it was submitted that as per the agreement the entire land including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention, the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd., [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). 8. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and taking note of the fact that ITAT ha deleted most of the additions, deleted penalty in respect of those additions, which were deleted by the ITAT. So far as the addition of Rs. 1,92,19,200/- sustained by the ITAT, the CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd. (supra), deleted the penalty imposed by holding as under: "The facts in the appellant's case are also similar. The appellant has made a claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of income consciously." 10. We have heard the submissions of the parties and perused the material on record including the orders of the revenue authorities. It is a fact on record that the Assessing Officer in the present case has passed the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the basis of additions made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act. However, the aforesaid assessment order was subjected to appeal before the ITAT and the ITAT vide order dated 31/12/2012 passed in ITA No. 2072/Hyd/2011 had deleted all the additions excepting the addition of Rs. 1,92,19,200/- towards the land cost attributable to the land sold by APHB on 500 LIG houses sold by it. Therefore, as would be evident, the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment order by the appellate authority i.e. CIT(A) or ITAT, then, the order imposing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty may be passed on the basis of assessment as revised by giving effect to such order of the CIT(A) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court or the order of revision u/s 263 or u/s 264. 12. In the present case, the ITAT having passed the order in appeal deleting all the additions excepting one, it is the requirement u/s 275(1A) that the Assessing Officer must pass an order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal and only thereafter consider the issue of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after giving opportunity of being heard to the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
