9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he resort - Held that:- I.T.A.T. in the quantum proceedings held that it is a neutral preposition to confirm the addition and allow expenditure and the depreciation - in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the addition made by the Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted. Thus we find no reason to uphold the levy of penalty levied in the present case u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Assessee appeal allowed. - ITA Nos.395 to 397/Chd/2018 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2019 - Shri Sanjay Garg, JM And Smt. Annapurna Gupta, AM For the Assessee : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. For the Revenue : Shri Ankur Alya, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM: All the above appeals have been filed by the assessee against the sep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t conducted on the Goel Group of Cases on 8.10.2010 as under: a) ₹ 99,96,580/- on account of bogus liability on account of labour charges. b) ₹ 1,72,20,000/- on the basis of seized documents on account of unaccounted sales transaction. 5. It was pointed out that Shri Ajay Goel was proprietor of Shimla Goel Properties and Shimla Goel Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and during search conducted on him a surrender of ₹ 50 lakhs had been made to cover up labour expenses shown as payable and booked in expenses on development of land sold at village Sargeen. The A.O. noted that the total development cost incurred during the impugned year included labour charges payable of ₹ 99,96,580/- as at the end of the year and since as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2011-12 and if found correct the addition stands deleted for the A.Y. 2010-11. 7. It was, therefore, contended that the addition had been restored back to the A.O and no longer survived, therefore the penalty levied u/s 271AAA of the Act also did not survive and needed to be deleted. 8. Vis- -vis the penalty levied on the addition made of ₹ 1,72,20,000/- the Ld. counsel for assessee pointed out from the order of the CIT(A) that the addition had been made on account of the fact that on the basis of documents seized from the residence of the assessee, being a sale deed of a property sold by the assessee at Sidhowal Ridge, Shimla,it was noted that while the sale consideration mentioned therein was ₹ 42 lacs, the market va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and summed up the issues vide letter dt. 24/05/2018. 7.5 We have heard and perused the records. We hereby lay down that the provisions of Section 50C are not applicable for the sale of assets which are part of stock in trade and remand the matter back to the fife of Assessing Officer for the limited issue to examine if the asset in question has been shown/reflected as stock in trade or in closing stock in the regular returns filed by the assessee and take a decision in accordance with law laid down. 9. The Ld. counsel for assessee, therefore, contended that penalty on the impugned addition also did not survive. 10. The Ld. DR fairly conceded that both the additions on which penalty u/s 271AAA had been levied had been restored b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from that resort. On the basis of a register impounded during survey operation at the resort identified as A-1 the A.O. had noted that the roofs of the guest house had been actually let out. As per the said register the assessee had received lodging charges of ₹ 1,61,500/- for the period 6.6.2009 to 2.8.2009. Based on the notings of the said document the A.O. had computed unaccounted receipts of the assessee from that resort for the entire period and accordingly, made an addition of ₹ 6,46,000/- as unaccounted receipts of the assessee from the running of the said resort. The said addition, it was pointed out, had been confirmed the CIT(A) in quantum proceedings. Thereafter our attention was drawn to the order of the I.T.A.T. i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide letter dt. 24/05/2018. 6.4 Based on the facts and arguments we find that it is a neutral preposition to confirm the addition and allow expenditure and the depreciation. 6.5 in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the addition made by the Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted. 14. The Ld. counsel for assessee, therefore, stated that since the addition had been deleted, no penalty was leviable. 15. The Ld. DR fairly conceded to the aforesaid fact that the addition on which penalty had been levied had been deleted by the I.T.A.T. in quantum proceedings. 16. In view of the above, we find no reason to uphold the levy of penalty levied in the present case u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty so l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
