Ambassador Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 308/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97329 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS RAKHI VIMAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 308/DEL/2015 ASSTT. YEAR : - 2008-09 AMBASSADOR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT C-18-19, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20 QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA NEW DELHI-110 055 NEW DELHI 110 016 (PAN AAACA9914C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY :MRS. RAKHI VIMAL, JCIT DATE OF HEARING :11.8.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 .9.2015 O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 31.10.20 14, WHEREIN THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) BY THE AO ON 27.6.2011 WAS UPH ELD BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THER E IS NO PETITION FOR ADJOURNMENT EITHER. HENCE I DISPOSE OFF THE CASE EX PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE, ON MERITS, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 3. THE ADDITIONS IN QUESTION, LEADING TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS DUE TO WRONG CLASSIFICATION OF RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ACQUISITION OF LANDS, BUILDINGS AND IN CARRYING OUT CONSTRUCTION AND THAT WHILE CORRECTLY MAKING ENTRIES IN THE ACCOUNTS, HE COMMI TTED A MISTAKE WHEN PREPARING ITA NO. 308/DEL/2015 AMBASSADOR C ONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 2 THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THUS HE SUBMITS THAT INC LUDING OF RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS WAS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS A BONAFIDE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE PENALTY IN QUESTI ON IS TO BE DELETED. 4. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDEN T 3. CIT 4. CI T(A) 5. DR 6. GU ARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 11.8.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 14.8.2 015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER