9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Pr. CIT-2, Jalandhar had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee. We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations conclude that as the imposition of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) by the Pr. CIT-2, Jalandhar suffers from a jurisdictional defect, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is herein quashed. - ITA No. 748 to 754/Asr/2017 - - - Dated:- 15-1-2019 - Shri N.K Saini, Vice President And Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Gunjeet Syal, A.R For the Revenue : Shri Ajay Goyal, C.I.T, D.R ORDER PER BENCH The present appeals filed by the assessee for A.Ys. 2006-07, 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 2014-15 are directed against the respective orders passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar (for short Pr. CIT ) under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short I.T. Act ), dated 31.10.2017. As common issues are involved in the aforementioned appeals, hence the same are being disposed off by way of a consolidate order, taking the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 as the lead year. The assessee assailing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lable on record, therefore, in the backdrop of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Limited Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) , the same are admitted. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee HUF had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 on 21.03.2007, declaring total income at ₹ 9,26,788/-. In the computation of income filed along with its return of income, the assessee had declared Income from House property at ₹ 9,73,340/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such under Sec. 143(1) of the I.T. Act. 3. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened, vide notice issued under Sec. 148, dated 09.02.2009 on the ground that as per the information received from M/s Larsen Toubro Ltd., vide their letter dated 18.04.2007 an amount of ₹ 14,00,000/- was paid by them to the assessee as lease rent for land, but such rental income as observed by the A.O was shown by the assessee in its return of income under the head Income from House property after claiming deduction of ₹ 4,17,145/- (being 30% of the net annual value of ₹ 13,90,485/-) under Sec. 24(a) of the I.T. Act. Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) amounting to ₹ 4,17,145/-. The Pr. CIT while passing the order under Sec. 263 also initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 7. Subsequently, the Pr. CIT called upon the assessee to show case as to why penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) may not be imposed upon it. The contention of the assessee that as it had disclosed all information in respect of earning of lease income and there was no deliberate attempt or positive act on its part to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income in the course of raising of a bonafide claim of deduction under Sec. 24(a), hence no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was liable to be imposed, did not find favour with the Pr. CIT. The Pr. CIT being of the view that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,63,671/- under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 8. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the Pr. CIT has carried the matter in appeal before us. The Ld. Authorized Representative (for short A.R ) for the assessee at the very outset of hearing of the appeal assailed the validity of the jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) relied on the order passed by the Pr. CIT-2, Jalandhar under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and submitted that the latter had validly imposed penalty under the said statutory provision in the hands of the assessee. 10. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We shall first advert to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Pr. CIT for imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee, as had been assailed by the Ld. A.R before us. 11. Admittedly, the Pr. CIT in his order passed under Sec. 263 of the I.T. Act, dated 17.05.2017 had initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, recording of any satisfaction on his part that the assessee had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income is not discernible from a perusal of the aforesaid order passed by him under Sec. 263, dated 17.05.2017. We find that the legislature in all its wisdom by incorporating Sec. 271(1B) on the statute, vide the Finance Act, 2008, w.r.e.f 01.04.1989 has provided that where an order of assessment or reass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 263 of the I.T. Act, therefore, the aforesaid judicial pronouncements would hold the ground in respect of the abovementioned proposition of law. We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the Pr. CIT-2, Jalandhar had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee. 13. We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations conclude that as the imposition of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) by the Pr. CIT-2, Jalandhar suffers from a jurisdictional defect, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is herein quashed. 14. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 viz. ITA No. 748/Asr./2017 is allowed. 15. As the facts and the issue involved in the other six appeals filed by the assessee viz. A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2014-15 viz. ITA Nos. 749 to 754/Asr./2017 remains the same as were there before us in the aforementioned appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 viz ITA No. 748/Asr./2017, therefore, our order passed while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 viz. ITA No. 748/Asr./2017 shall apply mutatis mutandis for the disposal of the appeals of the assessee for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2014- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
