Rajendrasingh Tarasingh Jabinda, Aurangabad V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad

ITA 160/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Rajendrasingh Tarasingh Jabinda, who appealed against the penalty imposed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for alleged concealment of income related to long-term capital gains. The penalty of Rs.18,80,628 was initially levied following an assessment order that adjusted the long-term capital gains based on a DVO's report. The Tribunal considered the appeal ex-parte due to the absence of the assessee's representation and focused on the merits of the case, particularly the procedural and substantive justice aspects influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic and other communication gaps cited by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137551 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC), Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC), Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.160/PUN./2023 Assessment Year 2014-2015 Shri Rajendrasingh Tarasingh Jabinda, 5/8/9, Peer Bazar Road, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. Maharashtra. PIN 431 005. PAN AAQPJ5209C vs. The DCIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad – 431 001. Maharashtra. Applicant Respondent Assessee by : -None- Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 03.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 03.04.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”], Delhi’s Din & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1036651413(1), dated 29.10.2021, involving proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). None appeared at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly heard ex-parte. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s instant appeal instituted on 09.02.2023, against the NFAC’s order dated 29.10.2021, suffers from 377 days 2 ITA.No.160/PUN./2023 Shri Rajendrasingh Tarasingh Jabinda, Aurangabad. delay. Hon’ble apex court’s directions in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314, exclude the covid-19 pandemic outbreak period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for all intents and purposes under the limitation law. The assessee has also filed his condonation petition/ affidavit dated 06.02.2023 quoting various communication gaps amongst himself, auditor and other levels as well as various cardiac ailments. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. We, therefore, condone the impugned delay and take- up the instant appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole grievance challenging correctness of both the learned lower authorities imposing sec. 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.18,80,628/- hardly requires us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix. This is for the precise reason that the same has been levied regarding long term capital gains addition of Rs.2,44,68,390/- made in the corresponding assessment order dated 30.12.2016 as modified in the CIT(A)'s directions on 08.02.2018 as per the DVO’s report which came 3 ITA.No.160/PUN./2023 Shri Rajendrasingh Tarasingh Jabinda, Aurangabad. to be filed only in the latter proceedings. It is in this factual backdrop that both the learned lower authorities have held that the assessee had concealed his particulars of taxable income inviting penalty of Rs.18,80,628/-. This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to vehement rival stands against and in support of the impugned penalty. Mr. Jasnani strongly supported the impugned penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 26.03.2019 as upheld in the NFAC’s lower appellate discussion. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the corresponding quantum addition has been made by the Assessing Officer keeping in mind the difference in stamp value vis-à-vis actual sale consideration, which was also subjected to DVO’s determination, than indicating any allegation of this taxpayer having actually received on-money component at the time of transfer of the relevant capital asset. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee’s stand adopted throughout is that his plot/capital asset had been acquired by the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation against TDR of equal area to be granted subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. It is clear therefore that the transferee herein is a statutory body i.e., the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation itself wherein the assessee’s capital asset was 4 ITA.No.160/PUN./2023 Shri Rajendrasingh Tarasingh Jabinda, Aurangabad. acquired/exchanged subject to certain pre-decided development mechanism. We hold in this peculiar facts and circumstances that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing the impugned penalty of Rs.18,80,628/- in assessee’s hands as representing concealment of income. The same is directed to be deleted. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on .04.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (G.D. PADMAHSHALI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 03 rd April, 2023 VBP/- Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. The Appellant; 2. The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A), Aurangabad 4. 5. 6. The CCIT, Pune The DR ‘B’, ITAT, Pune Guard File BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary : ITAT : Pune