TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to that extent and Assessing Officer has also allowed deduction. Therefore, keeping in view of the decision in the case of C.S. Atwal Vs. CIT, Ludhiana [2015 (7) TMI 878 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ] the assessee was required to pay capital gain tax only on the amount received which in the present case is ₹ 15,00,000/- and for which assessee has been allowed deduction u/s 54F. Therefore, no capital gains tax was payable during the year and if there was no capital gain tax payable, the question of penalty does not arise. In view of the above facts and circumstances the assessee cannot be said to have concealed the particulars of his income. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.602(Asr)/2015 - - - Dated:- 2-12-2016 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ble ITAT also confirmed the addition. The assessee was show caused as to why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) be not imposed. The assessee in response filed certain case laws but the Assessing Officer held that the case laws were distinguishable. The Assessing Officer held that since a part of sale consideration was received by assessee and the agreement of the land development had already been signed, therefore, the receipt of this sale consideration was Part Performance of the contract, and held the same to be transfer as per provisions of Sec.2(47)(v) of the Act. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty to the tune of ₹ 35,05,887/- being minimum penalty @100% of the tax sought to be evaded u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee had received only ₹ 15 lacs during the year. It is also an undisputed fact that assessee had invested an amount of ₹ 17,65,000/- in the residential House. This fact is verifiable from the assessment orders itself wherein the Assessing Officer has noted this fact and had allowed deduction u/s 54F to the extent of ₹ 17,65,000/- which is more than the amount of ₹ 15,00,000/- received during the year. The Assessing Officer had imposed penalty treating the whole amount of sale consideration to be received by assessee. The Hon ble Punjab Harayana High Court in the case of C.S. At ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cancellation of JDA dated 25.02.2007, no further amount has been received and no action thereon has been taken. It was urged that as and when any amount is received, capital gains tax shall be discharged thereon in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid stand, while disposing of the appeals, we observe that the assessee appellants shall remain bound by their said stand. 6. The issue of eligibility to capital gains tax having been decided in favour of the assessee, the question of exemption under Section 54F of the Act would not survive any longer and has been rendered academic. 7. The Tribunal and the authorities below were not right in holding the assessee-appellant to be liable to capital gains tax in respect of remaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
