9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Income Tax Deptt., Ms. Shilpi Keshi, Advocate ORAL JUDGMENT PER: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE The appeals are filed by an assessee from a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, the Tribunal) disposing of the appeals of the assessee and the revenue for the block period 1996-97 to 2002-03 assessment years. There were two technical objections raised by the assessee insofar as the jurisdiction and limitation which were found against the assessee, against which order, there is no grievance raised in the present appeals. The grievance raised is with respect to the specific grounds on which the assessee's appeal was filed. The first grievance is with respect to imposition of penalty on the addition of an income of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssible, particularly when the assessee has furnished all details asked for, but same have been ignored by the Tribunal in quantum appeal on the pretext that it had not formally been admitted as evidence, then penalty was not leviable on entire addition in such cases and the view favourable to the assessee ought to have been taken at least in the matter of imposing penalty? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in adopting a pick and choose method as it considered the matter of HRA, which had earlier been considered in regular assessment, in favour of the Revenue but chose to disallow capital gains exemption on the plea that capital gains had been declared in return for regular assessment i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fered also did not show any advances having been received by the assessee prior to the execution of the sale deed. The assessee also had a claim that the balances of the advances received were refunded. There was absolutely no evidence proffered to show such refunds. It was in such circumstances that the Assessing Officer made the addition, which though modified by the First Appellate Authority was restored by the Tribunal and which restoration was upheld by this Court. However, in the penalty proceedings the Tribunal relied on the First Appellate Authority's order and confirmed the penalty only with respect to the addition of Rs. 3.45 lakhs, which was disallowed to be treated as advance for sale of land received from prospective buyers. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de, since they were never claimed in the original return filed. The quantum appeal before this Court also has not dealt with the issue and Tribunal's order stands confirmed. 9. The Tribunal in the above circumstances found that the penalty is justified on this count also. However, we are of the opinion that if no deduction was claimed in the original return then definitely the capital gains would have been assessed to tax. If such assessment has already been made and deduction is now claimed under Section 54B and 54F in the block return and rejected there is no ground of imposition of penalty. We hence delete the penalty imposed on the ground of a wrong claim of Section 54B and 54F of the Act. 10. The last ground is with respect to the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
