Shri Mayank J. Patel, Baroda V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 3381/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4607 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

ITA NO.3381/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] ITA NO.3381/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 MAYANK J. PATEL, ...... ...... APPELLANT L/H. OF SHRI JITENDRA M. PATEL, AT AND POST DASHARATH, DIST. BARODA. [PAN: ACWPP 2648 F] VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), BARODA. ....................... RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: M.J. SHAH FOR THE APPELLANT T. SHANKAR FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 04.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 15.10.2018 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016, PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), UPH OLDING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE LEARNED C IT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.1,44,260/-. 3. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEAL, IT IS SUFFICIENT T O TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS.1,28,650/- AS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1981-82 WHILE IT WAS ACTUA LLY PURCHASED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1985-86. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE INFORMATION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON THE BASIS OF INPUTS FROM HIS FATHER WHO HAS PASSED AWAY ON 07.01.2015. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, IMPOSE D THE PENALTY OF RS.1,44,260/- FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. AGGRIEVED, A SSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE ME. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. ITA NO.3381/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 2 5. I HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSET IN QUESTION WAS PURC HASED BY ASSESSEES FATHER WHO HAS SINCE PASSED AWAY, AND IT WAS BASED ON THIS INP UT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN INCORRECTLY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, IN MY VIEW, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED SO FAR AS LIMITED PURPO SE OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS CONCERNED. 6. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AND BEARING IN MIN D ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, I DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.1,44,260/- 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 15 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: AHMEDABAD, THE 15 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD