INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD1(3), JALANDHAR V. SH. RAJESH MAYUR, JALANDHAR

ITA 400/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5752 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-02-2018
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S NEGI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.400/ASR/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR. VS. SHRI RAJESH MAYOR, M/S MAYOR & CO., G.T. ROAD, JALANDHAR. PAN: ACGPM7469P (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANDEEP VIJH, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.S. NEGI DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .02.2018 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 19.04.2017, DELETING THE PE NALTY OF ITA NO.400/ASR/2017 2 RS.16,11,000/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME OF RS.54 LAC IN HIS RETURN UNDER THE HEAD I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS NOT CHARGEABLE TO T AX. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF SUCH INCOME, THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE/COMPENSATION IN RE SPECT OF THE PROPERTY TO BE PURCHASED FOR WHICH THE SELLER REFUSED TO HAV E THE REGISTRY DONE. RELYING ON CERTAIN DECISIONS, IT WAS ARGUED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX, BEING A CAPIT AL RECEIPT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION FOR THE SAID SUM BY TREATING IT AS A SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND, THEREAFTER, PENALTY WA S IMPOSED WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE DELETION OF PENALT Y. 3. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVAN T MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS CAME UP FOR ITA NO.400/ASR/2017 3 CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL VI DE ITS ORDER, WHOSE RELEVANT PART HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER, HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOTHING HA S BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH FINDING OF THE TRIB UNAL HAS BEEN REVERSED OR MODIFIED IN ANY MANNER. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE BEDROCK FOR THE IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY, BEING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.54 LAC, CEASES TO EXIST, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD.CIT(A) CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH FOR DELETING THE PENALTY. WE, THEREFORE, COUNTENAN CE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.02.201 8. SD/- SD/- [N.K. CHOUDHRY] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED, 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. DK ITA NO.400/ASR/2017 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, AMRITSAR.