The Income-tax Officer, Muktsar V. Sh. Charanjit Singh, Muktsar

ITA 471/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2478 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR KANCHAN GARG
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.471(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN: ACOPS9378M INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH.CHARANJIT SINGH, WARD II(2), PROP. M/S. CHARANJIT SINGH & CO., MUKTSAR. MUKTSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: DR. KANCHAN GARG, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH.P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 18/11/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12/01/2016 ORDER THIS IS DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BATHINDA DATED 23. 04.2014. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DE LETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED AT RS.3,00,990/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPIT AL GAIN. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN DELETING THE PE NALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AS WHILE DECIDING THE QUAN TUM APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND WAS A CAPITAL ASSET THE SALE OF WHICH RESULTED IN SHORT TERM CAPI TAL GAIN. AS SUCH ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. WHEREAS WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL AGAINST PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271 (1)(C), THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AO ERRED IN IMPOSING PENALTY BECAUSE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT MADE A BONAFIDE DISCLOSURE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT HE WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX AS THE SUBJECT AGRICULTURE LAND SOLD BY HIM WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET AS DEFINED U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT THAT THE 2 APPELLANT IS NOT GUILTY OF FILING THE INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME RESULTING INTO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS ALLE GED BY THE AO. 2. THE REVENUE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961. THE CASE WAS HEARD ON MERITS. HOWEVER, WHILE DICTA TING THE ORDER, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE TAX INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPE AL IS LESS THAN RS.10,000/-. HENCE, AS PER CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21 OF 2015, DATE D 10 TH DEC., 2015, WHICH IS BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENT, THE DEPARTMENT IS PRECLUDED FROM FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL, AS THIS I NSTRUCTION IS APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINI ON, THE SAID INSTRUCTION OF CBDT IS BINDING UPON THE DEPARTMENT AND THE PRES ENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED CONTRARY TO THE SAID INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE CBDT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED, AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/01/20 16 SD/- (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12/01/2016 /SKR/ COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. CHARANJIT SINGH, MUKTSAR. 2. THE ITO, WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR. DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.