M/s Adriana Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5076/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 507620114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R K KAPOOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH A AA A : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO. .. .5076/DEL/2013 5076/DEL/2013 5076/DEL/2013 5076/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2008 2008 2008 2008- -- -09 0909 09 M/S ADRIANA BUILDERS AND M/S ADRIANA BUILDERS AND M/S ADRIANA BUILDERS AND M/S ADRIANA BUILDERS AND CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, 1 11 1- -- -E, E,E, E, NAAZ CINEMA COMPLEX, NAAZ CINEMA COMPLEX, NAAZ CINEMA COMPLEX, NAAZ CINEMA COMPLEX, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 055. 110 055. 110 055. 110 055. PAN : AAFCA9048J. PAN : AAFCA9048J. PAN : AAFCA9048J. PAN : AAFCA9048J. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -1(2), 1(2), 1(2), 1(2), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.K. KAPOOR, CA. RESPONDENT BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR, SR.DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP : : : : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-IV, NEW DELHI DATED 26 TH JUNE, 2013 FOR THE AY 2008-09. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINS T THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF ` 35,000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTE D BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF BUILDER/DEVELOPER. DURING THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION, WHILE RECORDING THE PURCHASE OF LAND, A SUM OF ` 1,11,727/- WHICH WAS IN FACT ADVANCE GIVEN FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND WAS WRONGLY TREATED AS PURCHASE OF LAND AND DEBITED TO LAND EXPENSES ACCOU NT. THAT WHEN THIS MISTAKE WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE HAS SUO MOTU REVERTED THE SAME IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OFF ERED THE INCOME ITA-5076/DEL/2013 2 FOR AY 2010-11. THAT THE INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN A SSESSED IN AY 2010-11. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN MADE THE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSES SEE DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION OF ` 1,11,727/- DUE TO SMALLNESS OF THE TAX INVOLVED THEREON. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREA DY PAID THE TAX ON THE SUM OF ` 1,11,727/- TWICE ONE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION AND ANOTHER IN AY 2010-11. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE MISTAKE WAS A BONA FIDE ONE AND ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO INFLATE THE E XPENSES ON PURCHASE OF LAND. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT TH E PENALTY OF ` 35,000/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE CAN CELLED. 4. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. CO NSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). WHILE TAKING THIS VIEW, WE DERIVE SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PV T.LTD. VS. CIT AND ANOTHER (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). ACCORDINGLY, TH E PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS CANCELLED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( (H HH H.S. SIDHU .S. SIDHU .S. SIDHU .S. SIDHU) )) ) (G.D. AGRAWAL (G.D. AGRAWAL (G.D. AGRAWAL (G.D. AGRAWAL) )) ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 08.08.2014 VK. ITA-5076/DEL/2013 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S ADRIANA BUILDERS AND M/S ADRIANA BUILDERS AND M/S ADRIANA BUILDERS AND M/S ADRIANA BUILDERS AND CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, 1 11 1- -- -E, NAAZ CINEMA COMPLEX, E, NAAZ CINEMA COMPLEX, E, NAAZ CINEMA COMPLEX, E, NAAZ CINEMA COMPLEX, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI 110 055. 110 055. 110 055. 110 055. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -1(2), NEW DELHI. 1(2), NEW DELHI. 1(2), NEW DELHI. 1(2), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR