9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2003-04. 2 The Revenue urges the following questions of law for our consideration: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that there were no inaccurate particulars when a Coordinate Bench had clearly indicated that the Respondent had constructed and sold flats in excess of the permissible area as per Section 80IB(10)? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that no penalty is imposable under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act? 3 Re:Question (i): (a) The Respondent-Assessee is in the business of construction of residential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal after perusal of the evidence before it, records the finding that 104 units had been constructed in accordance with the plan approved by the local authorities and on completion of the project, the local authorities had also issued completion certificate. The sanctioned plans was the basis of which completion certificate was given to the Petitioner. It is on the basis of this that the Respondent-Assessee had claimed the benefit of Section 80IB(10) of the Act. Further, the impugned order also negatived the contention of the Revenue that the flats have been sold to the members of the same family and consequently in breach of clause (f) of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Section 80IB(10) of the Act, yet penalty may not be warranted as the claim was made on the basis of the local authorities sanctioning the building plans and granting a Completion Certificate. Besides, the sale of adjacent flats to members of same family during the subject Assessment Year was not barred. It was barred only after introduction of the sub-clause (f) to Section 80IB of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 2010. Thus, in these facts, the view taken by the Tribunal is a very possible view. (g) Moreover, it is also to be noticed that the appeal against the order dated 1st April, 2011 of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings has been admitted by this Court on 12th March, 2013 on a substantial questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consequent penalty proceedings in the context of Section 143(2) of the Act when it has already been decided by the order dated 1st April, 2011 of a Coordinate Bench in the Respondent -Assessee's own case in quantum proceedings. This being a pure issue of law, the impugned order, prima facie, should have not opined on the same as it stood concluded by an order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the Respondent-Assessee in the quantum proceedings. 5 Registry is directed to communicate copy of this order to the Tribunal. This would enable the Tribunal to keep papers and proceedings relating to the present appeal available, to be produced when sought for by the Court. To be heard along with Income Tax Appeal No. 256 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
