9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 16.10.2015, Annexure A.5, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 696/CHD/2014, for the assessment year 2007-08, claiming following substantial questions of law:- (i) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in deleting the penalty when the assessee had not fully disclosed the accrued capital gain and the appeal was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in deleting the penalty when the assessee had not fully disclosed the accrued capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered in the name of the society in respect of which it would give development rights in lieu of consideration. The assessee being a member of the said society was owning 500 square yards land. The total consideration was settled at Rs. 82,50,000/- plus allotment of one flat of 2250 square feet to the assessee out of which he had received Rs. 15 lacs. The assessee had furnished his return of income on 7.3.2008 for the assessment year 2007-08 declaring income of Rs. 2,12,820/- only. Subsequently, the assessee had filed one more return of income on 13.10.2009 declaring the sale consideration of Rs. 15 lacs and capital gain of Rs. 8,63,976/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that as per the agreement dated 27.4.2007, each of the members of the soc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll date. Aggrieved by the order, the department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 16.10.2015, Annexure A.5, the Tribunal relying upon its own earlier orders in ITO vs.Shri Balwinder Singh Dhillon in ITA No.1140 of 2014 for the assessment year 2008-09 and in view of the decision of this Court in C.S.Atwal and others vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another, ITA No.200 of 2013 decided on 22.7.2015 in which the quantum addition stood deleted, deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence the instant appeals by the revenue. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The matter is no longer res integra. In C.S.Atwal's case (supra) in ITA No. 200 of 2013 decided on July 22, 2015, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 2(47)(v) of the Act does not apply. (5) It was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee-appellant that whatever amount was received from the developer, capital gains tax has already been paid on that and sale deeds have also been executed. In view of cancellation of JDA dated 25.02.2007, no further amount has been received and no action thereon has been taken. It was urged that as and when any amount is received capital gains tax shall be discharged thereon in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid stand, while disposing of the appeals, we observe that the assessee appellants shall remain bound by their said stand. (6) The issue of exigibility to capital gains tax having been decided in favour of the assessee, the question o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
