9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable the assessment year 2012-2013. Whether the penalty can be levied in the year under consideration for the income offered to tax by the assessee in the year under consideration? - Question of the penalty arises when there is an income which was either concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly we hold that there cannot be any question of penalty as there was no taxable income in the hands of the assessee. As such, there cannot be any penalty merely on the ground that the assessee has offered some income during the assessment proceedings which was actually not chargeable to tax in the year under consideration. Assessee has not disclose the capital gain income in his income tax return on question, by the AO the assessee explained that such income was not offered to tax under the bona fides believe that the same would be taxable upon the completion of the entire project. This contention of the assessee was not doubted by the authorities below. Therefore it can be inferred that the assessee did not deliberately offer the impugned income in his income tax return. As such there was no deliberate/willful act on the part of the assessee either to conceal the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of Ahmedabad ITAT relied upon squarely apply to the facts of the appellant. 7. On the facts no such penalty ought to have been levied. 3. The combined issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty order without appreciating the fact there were no inaccurate particular furnished. Further the order is bad in law as the notice issued does not specify for which limb the proceeding was initiated under section 271(1)(c) the Act. 4. Briefly stated fact is that the assessee is an individual and earning income from agriculture activity and tuition fee. During the A.Y. 2012-13 the assessee entered into an agreement dated 10-2-2012 with a property developer namely Sandipani Infrastructure a partnership firm for development of residential housing society at his land situated at block no. 739 Shiljal (Bhopal) Ahmedabad. The value of the consideration for the assessee in the agreement was decided at ₹ 6 crores. The assessee during theyear received two shop in a mall namely HimlayaEmeraledSatelite Ahmedabad for the value of ₹ 94,08,000/- as consideration from developer namely Sandipani Infrastructure against sale of one of the unit of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant did not offer the same on his own to prove the bonafide therefore the contention of the appellant is not tenable. Thus the appellant furnished inaccurate particular of income and by way of not furnishing information of capital gain concealed the income. The appellant also relied on various decisions however facts are different and distinguishable from these case laws relied upon by the appellant. Considering the above facts, the penalty levied by the A.O. is confirmed. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to37 and submitted that the assessee did not offer the impugned income under the bona fides believe that the same is taxable on the completion of the entire project. Therefore there cannot be any penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record before us. From the preceding discussion we find that the assessee has handed over the land to the developer vide agreem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him is debarred from enforcing against the transferee any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has been taken or continued in possession other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract. 14. Admittedly, in the present case the land has been handed over to the developer against the consideration which was fixed at ₹ 6 crores. Therefore, we are of the view that the transfer of the land has taken place in the assessment year 2012-13 in pursuance to the agreement dated 10th February 2012. The conditions as specified under section 53A of the transfer of property Act 1882 have been satisfied as discussed above. From the above, it is transpired that the land was transferred to the developer with the possession in the assessment year 2012-13 and therefore the transfer as per the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act has taken place. Thus the income in our understanding on such transaction was taxable the assessment year 2012-2013. 15. The 2nd controversy arises whether the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording to truth; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript. We have already seen the meaning of the word particulars in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the Return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false 18. In view of the above, we hold that there cannot be any penalty in the given facts and circumstances under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that the assessee has not deliberately furnished inaccurate particular of income. Accordingly we set aside the finding of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 19. Before we part with the issue/appeal as discussed above, it is pertinent to note that the clause (c) of rule 34 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 requires the bench to make endeavour to pronounce the order within 60 days from the conclusion of the hearing. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, besides extending the validity of all interim orders, has also observed that, It is also clarified that while calculating time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly , and also observed that arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020 . It has been an unprecedented situation not only in India but all over the world. Government of India has, vide notification dated 19th February 2020, taken the stand that, the coronavirus should be considered a case of natural calamity and FMC (i.e. force majeure clause) maybe invoked, wherever considered appropriate, following the due procedure . The term force majeure has been defined in Black s Law Dictionary, as an event or effect that can be neither anticipated nor controlled When such is the position, and it is officially so notified by the Government of India and the Covid-19 epidemic has been notified as a disaster under the National Disaster Management Act, 2005, and also in the light of the discussions above, the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
