M/S HIGH RISE CONSTRUCTION, Nagpur V. I.T.O. WARD -1(5), Nagpur

ITA 23/NAG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8371 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AGNES THOMAS
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ नागप ू र म ें । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.23/NAG/2017 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 High Rise Construction, S-1, High Rise Prestige, New Sneha Nagar, Nagpur – 440015 PAN : AAAFH7513D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. ITO, Ward – 1(5), Nagpur ......प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Manoj Moryani Revenue by : Shri Agnes Thomas स ु नवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 11-11-2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 16-11-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28-11-2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee raised sole ground of appeal challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 ITA No. 23/NAG/2017, A.Y. 2012-13 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of construction and builder. The assessee conducts its business under the name and style of “M/s. High Rise Construction”. According to the AO that the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income at Rs. Nil by claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. We note that the assessee constructed a housing scheme and earned a total profit of Rs.42,20,301/- against which a deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act claimed. The AO vide order dated 24-02-2015, we note, that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act and the project was incomplete and denied deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. As matter stood thus, the AO also initiated proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the penalty order dated 09-03-2016 vide Para No. 4 it was held that the assessee failed to produce supporting documents like completion certificate issued by the local authority during the assessment proceedings. It was contended that the assessee submitted circumstantial evidences in the form of Tax Receipt, NOC for electrical connection, valuation certificate issued by the Architect for financing loan, possession letter etc. and also requested the AO to put the penalty proceedings in abeyance in view of appeal being pending before the ITAT but however, the AO imposed penalty of Rs.13,04,100/- by holding that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act as was confirmed by the CIT(A). It was brought to our notice by the ld. AR that the SMC Bench of Tribunal deleted the disallowance made by the AO u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act and the same is placed on record. On perusal of the order dated 18-01- 2017 passed by Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal which held by examination of relevant evidences that the assessee duly completed the housing project and entitled for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act vide Para Nos. 3 ITA No. 23/NAG/2017, A.Y. 2012-13 8 and 9. The contention of ld. AR is that when the quantum is deleted by the Tribunal the penalty imposed by the AO as confirmed by the CIT(A) is unjustified. We find force in the arguments of the ld. AR that admittedly not disputed by the ld. DR that the disallowance made by the AO in assessment proceedings was deleted by the Tribunal, in our opinion, does not constitute the allegation of AO that the assessee filed inaccurate particulars of income and no penalty lies. Thus, the penalty imposed by the AO as confirmed by the CIT(A) is not justified and it is set aside. Thus, the sole ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 4. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16 th November, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩ ु णे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 16 th November, 2021. RK आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Nagpur 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Nagpur 5. ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, नागऩ ू र, / DR, ITAT, Nagpur. 6. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. //सत्यावऩत प्रतत// True Copy// आदेशान ु सार / BY ORDER, तनजी सधिव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩ ु णे / ITAT, Pune