Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (10) TMI 977

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly on the ground on which the penalty proceedings were initiated in the assessment order. Although the powers of CIT(A) are coterminus with that of the Assessing Officer, the imposition of penalty could be only the ground on which it was initiated. This is not the case, where the CIT(A) had independently initiated penalty proceedings on a new ground in an order in quantum proceedings in appeal from the Assessment Order. This alone could lead to the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the new ground. The ground on which the penalty was initiated and penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, namely, that the flat had been sold in the project which was in excess of 1000 sq.ft., the Tribunal has recorded a finding of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g Officer noticed that two buyers, viz. Ms. Sulbha M. Waghle and Mr. Mangesh G. Waghle had entered into joint agreement for purchase of flats which in the aggregate exceeded 1,000 sq.ft (built up area). Consequently, by Assessment Order dated 28 December 2007, he disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 801B(10) of the Act while initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the aforesaid ground for furnishing inaccurate information/concealing of income. 4. The Respondent-assessee carried issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). During pendency of the appeal, before the first Appellate Authority, the Officers of the Revenue initiated a search action under Section 132 of the Act on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he order dated 30 March 2010. It is to be noted that CIT(A) in its order did not deal with the issue on which the Assessing Officer had initiated and confirmed the penalty upon the Respondent-assessee. 7. Being aggrieved the Respondent-assessee filed a further appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order the Tribunal held that the initiation and confirmation of penalty by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, was not on the ground that the project was not completed by the due date, on which the CIT (A) confirmed the penalty. Thus the Tribunal held that this could not be done by the CIT(A) as the penalty proceedings were initiated on account of selling flats of an area in excess of 1000 sq.ft. i.e. a ground different .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty on a new ground as the powers of the CIT(A) are coterminus with that of the Assessing Officer, therefore, he could do all that the Assessing Officer could have done. 9. It is undisputed position before us that initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is on the ground of area of flat being sold in excess of 1000 sq.ft. being concealed. It was this ground that the Respondentassess is required to offer explanation during penalty proceedings to establish that the claim as made in the return of income was not on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income visavis of selling flat having area 1000 sq.ft. The Assessing Officer under the Act also considered the Res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates