Rattan Dass L/H of Late Sh. Bhagat Ram, Rampur Bushehr V. ITO, Rampur Bushshr

ITA 994/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8522 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2010
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: PARVEEN KAPOOR
• Keywords: Bonafide belief
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH (SMC) BEFORE SHRI N. BARATHVAJA SANKAR VICE PRESIDENT I.T.A NO. 994/CHANDI/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 RATTAN DASS V INCOME TAX OFFICER L/H OF LATE SHRI BHAGAT RAM RAMPUR BUSHEHR RAMPUR (H.P) PAN: AMTPD 5134 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI PARVEEN KAPOOR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K. SAINI ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE SHRI RA TTAN DASS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 7.5.2010. THE RELEVANT GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF INTEREST U/S 28 OF L.A. ACT MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE COVERING THE ISSUE UNDER THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN 315 ITR 1 (S.C) CIT V. GHANSHYAM (HUF ) WHERE IN IS LAID THAT SAID INTEREST U/S 28 IS PART OF THE ENHANCED C OMPENSATION AND HENCE NOT TAXABLE BECAUSE THE COMPENSATION IS NOT TAXABLE . 2 THE LD. CIT(A) WRONGLY IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE SAID INTEREST WAS NOT CONSIDERED AS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE BEING THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED ON ACCOUNT OF BONAFIDE BELIEF IN VIEW OF T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HINDUST AN HOUSING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT TRUST LTD, 161 ITR 524 AND RAMA BAI V. CIT, 181 ITR 400. 2 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE BROUGHT BEFORE ME FOR ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT IN THIS CASE ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF 2 INTEREST U/S 28 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, IS SUSTAIN ABLE OR NOT? IN ITA NO. 882 & 879/CHD/2010 FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE CA SE OF SAME ASSESSEE, IN QUANTUM APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCEEDED BY OUR OR DER DATED 24.08.2010. ONCE THE QUANTUM ADDITION HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE D IVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THIS ORDER OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT HAS NO LEGS TO STAND. HENCE I AM ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY QUASHIN G THE PENALTY ORDER. 3 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF AUGUST,2010. SD/- (N. BARATHVAJA SANKAR) VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 24 .08.2010 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/ THE DR