Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2, Pune Versus M/s. Weikfield IT Citi Info Park

2016 (4) TMI 460 - ITAT PUNE

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - claim of deduction under section 80IA(iv) - Held that:- We find merit in the claim of the assessee in this regard, where complete information was furnished by the assessee along with return of income and even during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished the requisite information. Since the total constructed area of Industrial Park was within limits of proposed area of Industrial Park, the assessee bonafidely believed that it was entitled t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act upon the assessee holding the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The conditions for levy of penalty for concealment having not been fulfilled, does not warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.737/PN/2014 - Dated:- 10-3-2016 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM For The Appellant : Shri Mazhar Akram For The Respondent : S/Shri Dharmes .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and brought out by the Assessing Officer in the penalty order in support of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty on the premise that the assessee had correctly filed the return and all the material facts were brought on record, de hors his findings in para 3.4 of his order that the assessee had constructed an extra floor in contravention to the approval granted by CBDT for ground plus eight floors. 3. The le .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

but the material facts are disclosed during the assessment proceedings, no such penalty was leviable. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any or all the grounds of appeal. 3. The issue raised in the present appeal filed by the Revenue is against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the present case, the assessee is an AOP, who had declared income from business, commission income and income from other sources. The assessee had furnis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l Park. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished details of sales made during the year, which constitute of release of amount out of sales made in the earlier years totaling ₹ 2.29 crores, sale of ground floor of the Info Citi Park at ₹ 5.97 crores and sale of 9th floor of the Info City Park at ₹ 2.54 crores. The assessee furnished the details of Info Citi Project i.e. date of approval, area of project, notification given by the CBDT and the Departmen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ver, during the year under consideration, the assessee had converted the units on the ground floor into two industrial units by creating a partition. Further, the assessee had constructed two units on the 9th floor. Since the approval for construction of two units at 9th floor was taken after 28.02.2006 i.e. after completion of Industrial Park, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the same could not be regarded as part of Industrial Park and hence, the deduction under section 80IA of the A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wed the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act to the extent of ₹ 53,79,539/-. Further, the addition was made in the hands of assessee for non-deduction of tax at source to the extent of ₹ 1,33,102/- by applying provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of both the additions for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During penalty proceedings, the claim of the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xplanation which is found to be false. Further, penalty may also be levied when person offers an explanation, which he is not able to substantiate and further fails to prove that such explanation was bonafide and that all the facts relating to the same and materials to the computation have been disclosed by him. The claim of the assessee was that the onus to prove that the provisions are applicable was on the Assessing Officer. Further, reliance was placed on several decisions before the Assessi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

project. The assessee however, constructed 9th floor and claimed deduction under section 80IA of the Act, which act of the assessee was deliberate violation of provisions of section 80IA of the Act. In view thereof, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the said concealed income @ 100% and penalty was levied at ₹ 18,03,220/-. 5. The CIT(A) considered the explanation of assessee and reliance on several decisions and main emphasis of the assessee that it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o restriction was given in the approval granted in respect of park. The CIT(A) was of the view that the said explanation prima facie appears to be correct on perusal of the said notification. Further, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the approval of IT Park was for ground plus 8 floors by the CBDT, was also found to be true from the material on record. The CIT(A) noted that the accounts of assessee were subject to audit and no adverse comment in this regard, was made. As against the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessee can be held to have fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for its assessment and for determining the eligibility of claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act during those years. The CIT(A) further held that the disallowance made does not ipso facto lead to levy of penalty for concealment and where the assessee had disclosed all the material facts relevant for its assessment and the issue was a debatable vis-à-vis the claim of deduction provided under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not acted bonafidely, hence, the CIT(A) held that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, was leviable. Reliance was placed on series of decisions for the said proposition and it was held that at best it was a case of incorrect reading of law or failure to apply the same correctly, which as per the CIT(A), could not attract the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, hence, the same was deleted. 6. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 7. The learned Departmental Repre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er was of the view that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Our attention was drawn to the application moved by the assessee before the Ministry of Commerce i.e. application for setting up of Industrial Park, which is placed at pages 4 to 9 of the Paper Book. Referring to page 7 of the Paper Book, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the proposed allocable area of Industrial Park was 49,450 sq. mtrs., out of total area of 61,780. Furthe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and maintained and operated by the assessee as an Industrial Park. For the purpose of clause (3) to section 80IA(iv) of the Act, area of Industrial Park was 61,780 sq. mtrs. and the minimum number of industrial units were 30 units. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to another application moved before the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which is placed at pages 19 to 21 of the Paper Book, which was filed on 07.05.2007, under which the proposed area of Industrial .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

floor, there were two units and total area of units of each floor of all the floors was 4,84,898 sq. ft. equivalent to 45048 sq. mtrs. The assessee explained that the proposed area of Industrial Park was 61780 sq. mtrs. and the assessee claimed that the profits arising from the said portion were also eligible for deduction under section 80IA(iv) of the Act. However, on the reworking of deduction under section 80IA(iv) of the Act, no appeal was filed against the order of Assessing Officer. Howeve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in ITO Vs. Sharada Construction & Investment Company (2014) 50 taxmann.com 331 (Pune - Trib). 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising before us is with regard to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said section 271(1)(c) of the Act has two limbs i.e. penalty for concealment could be levied upon the assessee where he has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ver, where the assessee had made a claim, which as per him, was bonafide and complete particulars with regard to it had been furnished by the assessee, then in such circumstances, merely because the claim of the assessee has been rejected and addition has been made in the hands of assessee, the question is whether the assessee can be held to be liable for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) have he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

part of this judgment. Reading the words in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the clai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thing would depend upon the return filed by the assessee, because that was only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of its income. It was further held that in order to attract penalty, the details supplied in the return of income must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. In order to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there should be a finding that the details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

de disclosure by way of furnishing the facts and materials in the computation of income and where no information or statement given by the assessee in the return of income or during the course of assessment proceedings, was found to be factually incorrect or inaccurate, case of the assessee could not be said to be case of concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, p enalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted. 12. Now, coming to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee very clearly mentioned that it was proposing to construct 61,780 sq. mtrs. in the said building, against which it was entitled to claim deduction under section 80IA(iv) of the Act. The copy of the said application made by the assessee is available on record. The CBDT also approved the construction and development of Industrial Park by the assessee and necessary approval was granted to the assessee for proposed area to be built up of 61,780 sq. mtrs. The final plan approved for the said p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

floor was constructed after completion of the project of ground plus 8 floors. The Assessing Officer also referred to an application moved by the assessee in respect of another project, under which, the proposed area of about 51,096 sq. mtrs. only. Hence, the Assessing Officer re-computed the deduction under section 80IA(iv) of the Äct, against which the assessee was held to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied. The claim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version