2016 (4) TMI 458 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee claiming benefit u/s 54 - Held that - In the present case, in our opinion the assessee has neither concealed his income nor has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had disclosed all and furnished the particulars with regard to the said sale of property in the return of income and also declared capital gain after claiming benefit u/s 54 of the Act in respect of flat at Rameshwar Co-Op.Hsg Soc, Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai besides claiming the expenditures on transfer of property and declared long term capital gains for taxation. Besides, the security deposit which was treated as part of sales consideration was refunded to the builder upon handing over of the 1800 sq.ft. flats on first floor of the new property in three installments as agreed. Thus under these facts we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income and order of ld.CIT(A) upholding the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to the assessment year 1995-96. The penalty in question amounted to Rs. 25,41,970.

2. The case revolved around the sale of a property known as "Madhu Sadan" by the assessee, who had entered into agreements with a construction company for development and transfer of the property. The dispute arose regarding the calculation of capital gains, particularly the consideration amount and expenses claimed by the assessee.

3. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under section 147 r.w. section 148, determining the sale consideration at Rs. 2,25,00,000 instead of Rs. 1,30,00,000 shown by the assessee. The AO based this on the absence of the 1800 sq.ft area given to the assessee as per the agreement with the construction company.

4. The Tribunal considered the grounds raised by the assessee, where it did not press the issue of sale consideration but focused on claiming relief under section 54 for Rs. 95,00,000. The Tribunal allowed this relief, noting that the interest-free security deposit was refunded to the builder in installments upon receiving possession of the area.

5. The penalty was imposed on the grounds of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and suppressing income. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, stating that the value of the flat constituted part of the consideration for the property sale. The CIT(A) also emphasized that the transactions were part of an overall scheme to claim deductions twice.

6. The Tribunal, upon review, found that the assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed all relevant details in the return of income, including the capital gains and expenses. The refund of the security deposit further supported the assessee's position.

7. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had not provided inaccurate particulars of income, and the penalty was unjustified. The AO was directed to act accordingly.

8. In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee against the penalty was allowed, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted based on the findings of the Tribunal.