2016 (12) TMI 1634 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) - disallowance of exemption u/s 54 - Held that - A.R. Ms. Ridhi Shah shown and filed an order of the ITAT where ITAT under Appeal titled as ACIT Circle-10 Vs. Kalpanaben M. Bhatt 2012 (7) TMI 718 - ITAT DELHI for the same assessment year. In this case Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad has allowed the quantum appeal of the appellant/assessee. Therefore in such circumstances penalty cannot be levied. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of exemption u/s 54 of the IT Act
2. Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the IT Act

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of exemption u/s 54 of the IT Act
The case involved a scrutiny assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act, where the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 54 of the Act amounting to ?1,00,00,000. The AO held that the conditions prescribed under section 54 for availing the exemption from capital gains tax on the transfer of a residential house property were not fulfilled. This disallowance led to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the disallowance.

Issue 2: Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the IT Act
The penalty notice under section 271(1)(C) was issued by the AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, during the appeal, the assessee presented an order of the ITAT in a similar case where the Co-ordinate Bench allowed the quantum appeal of the appellant/assessee. The ITAT held that since the quantum appeal was allowed, the penalty could not be levied in such circumstances. Consequently, the ITAT in this case dismissed the appeal of the revenue, citing the decision in the aforementioned similar case.

In conclusion, the ITAT, Ahmedabad, in its judgment, upheld the decision to disallow the exemption under section 54 of the IT Act but dismissed the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(C) based on the principle that if the quantum appeal is allowed, the penalty cannot be levied. The judgment was pronounced on 14/12/2016.