FRANCIS LISTON,ERNAKULAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NONCORPORATE WARD 2(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM

ITA 673/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Francis Liston against the penalty imposed for incorrectly claiming deductions and losses on his income tax return for the assessment year 2011-12. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) found that the assessee had leased out his residential property under a self-lease scheme and was receiving lease rent, which he did not account for correctly in his tax returns. The penalty was challenged at various levels, including the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and the CIT(A), but was upheld at each stage. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the assessee's failure to provide adequate justification for the incorrect claims and the non-submission of supporting documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788108 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL. SNR
• Assessee Lawyers: FRANCIS LISTON
• Section: 148; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, KOCHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.673/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Francis Liston Badge No.81922, BPCL, Kochi Refinery, Ambalamugal, Ernakulam-682 302 PAN : AAUPL4921B vs Income Tax Officer, Noncorporate Ward 2(1), Kochi C R Building, I S Press Road, Eranakulam-682 018 APPLICANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Francis Liston Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal. Snr DR Date of hearing : 29/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/11/2025 O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter called ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, the “the Act”), date of order 22/07/2025 for Assessment year 2011-12. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Non-Corp. Ward-2(1), Kochi (for brevity, the “Ld. AO”) passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 19/08/2016. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA 673/Coch/2025 Francis Liston 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return u/s 139(1) of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and the assessee filed the return of income declaring the same total income as was declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Ld.AO during the assessment proceedings found that the residential property owned by the assessee is leased out to the company under the self lease scheme and the assessee was in receipt of lease rent for the period relevant to A.Y. 2011-12. In return, the company allotted the same to the assessee as rent free accommodation. Such house will not be treated as self occupied house for purpose of claiming the deduction u/s 24(b) because the occupation of house is not owned by the assessee himself. Accordingly, the deduction claimed u/s 24(b) was duly added back with the total income of the assessee and assessee wrongly claimed loss under the head “Income from house property” of Rs.71,605/- as against the income of Rs.6,751/-. The said assessment order was challenged before the Ld.CIT(A). But the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on merit. Further, the Ld.AO issued the penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, which amounted to Rs. 8,070/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by challenging the penalty order. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The assessee filed the statement of facts and stated that the self lease scheme was duly withdrawn from 10/07/2010, so the assessee is the owner of the said property. Further, he also stated that the quantum addition was challenged before the ITAT, but no such order is passed yet, as there is no document submitted by the assessee in support of his claim. The quantum is Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA 673/Coch/2025 Francis Liston already dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is unable to explain the reason for non-imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) correctly upheld the penalty amount of Rs.8,070/-. We are not interfering in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.673 /Coch/2025 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24 /11/2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Kochi,Ǒदनांक/Dated 24/11/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/The Appellant , 2. ĤǓतवादȣ/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुÈत CIT 4. ͪवभागीयĤǓतǓनͬध, आय.अपी.अͬध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Kochi 5. गाड[फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, KOCHI Printed from counselvise.com "