9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was running a hospital in the name and style of "New Life Hospitals", till 31/10/2015, and subsequently for their own reasons, they leased it out to Thumbey Hospital India Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 03/11/2015. It filed return of income on 17/10/2016 for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring an income of Rs. 86,90,973/-. Subsequently, it revised the same on 08/11/2017, declaring the income of Rs. 33,64,220/-. In the original return of income the assessee considered the entire lease rent amounting to Rs. 1,87,50,000/- as business income claiming full depreciation on the assets, including building and equipment for the entire year; whereas in the revised return, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act and, therefore, it is bad under law. It is also contended that there is no concealment of income and, therefore, mere disallowance of the claim will not result in levy of penalty. Lastly learned AR contended that law does not permit passing two penalty orders by the learned Assessing Officer, because with passing of the first penalty order the learned Assessing Officer becomes functus officio and, therefore, the second penalty order is nonest in the eye of law. 6. Learned DR submitted that insofar as the objection based on section 275 of the Act is concerned, section 275 of the Act says that the order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings for impositi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod expires later. In this case, the Tribunal passed the orders on 24/03/2021 and by 31/03/2021, the financial year ends or by the end of September, 2022, six months expires from the end of the month in which the order by the Appellate Tribunal was passed. There is evidence to justify the action of the learned Assessing Officer in passing the current impugned order dated 01/04/2022. On this score, Revenue has no case. 8. Coming to the second objection, we are in agreement with the learned AR that whether or not subsequently cancelled by the learned CIT(A), with the passing of the first penalty order by 13/08/2021 within six months from the end of the month in which the Appellate Tribunal passed the orders, the learned Assessing Officer b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was further held that if the contention of the Revenue is accepted, then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the learned Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and that is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. Merely because the assessee preferred a claim which was not acceptable to the Revenue, the assessee cannot be visited with the proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, unless and until the twin requirements under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are satisfied. Viewing from any angle, we find that the impugned penalty order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
