2017 (10) TMI 107 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271D - review petition - Held that - Agreement describes the extent of the property as 0.20 cents. Such description of the extent, would ordinarily be taken as 20 Sq. Links, as done by the Tribunal. On the other hand, if the extent was, in fact, 20 cents, the description should have been either as 20 cents or 0.20 acres. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for its conclusion that the extent of the property is 0.20 Sq. Links. This being the factual situation, we are not persuaded to differ from the views taken by the Tribunal and in the judgment, relying on Annexure-A, a valuation report obtained subsequent to the judgment of this Court, now produced along with this review petition. Even otherwise, a reading of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal would show that, in paragraph 8 of its order, the Tribunal has given reasons (a) to (g) to hold that the theory that ₹ 15 lakhs was received by the assessee as property advance under the agreement, is not a convincing one. It is only in sub para (b) that the Tribunal has held the extent of the property to be 20 Sq. Links. Even if that finding is found to be vitiated, the other reasons given by the Tribunal in para 8(a) and (c) to (g) are independent of sub para (b) and are unassailable. Therefore, so long as these conclusions remain valid, which it should be, the conclusions as contained in sub para (b) cannot have any impact thereon. We are not persuaded to think that the judgment deserves to be reviewed.

Summary

Issues: Review petition challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act based on the extent of the property described in the agreement.

In this judgment, a review petition was filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which imposed a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the extent of the property covered by the agreement was erroneous. The Tribunal had considered the property to be 0.20 cents, while the petitioner argued it was actually 20 cents. The High Court examined the agreement and noted that the description of the property was indeed 0.20 cents, which would typically be interpreted as 20 Sq. Links. The Court found no fault with the Tribunal's conclusion based on this description. The Court also highlighted that the Tribunal had provided multiple reasons to question the theory that a certain amount was received as property advance, with the extent of the property being just one aspect. The Court emphasized that the other reasons provided by the Tribunal were independent and valid. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Tribunal's overall conclusions remained unaffected by any potential error in determining the extent of the property. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petition, affirming the Tribunal's order and penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act.