Renew Your Membership by 31st October 2024! Renew Now!

February 2009

S. 271(1)(c) — Whether penalty can be levied in case where rental income is assessed under head ‘Income from House Property’ as against ‘Income from Business’ — Held, No.

By Jagdish D. Shah, Jagdish T. Punjabi, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part B — Unreported Decisions

(Full texts of the following Tribunal decisions are available
at the Society’s office on written request. For members desiring that the
Society mails a copy to them, Rs.30 per decision will be charged for
photocopying and postage.)





27 ACIT 8(3) v. Vazir Glass
Works Ltd.


ITAT ‘F’ Bench, Mumbai

Before S. V. Mehrotra (AM) and

V. D. Rao (JM)

ITA No. 332/Mum./2007

A.Y. : 2001-02. Decided on : 24-11-2008

Counsel for revenue/assessee : J. V. D. Langstein/ B. V.
Jhaveri

S. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Whether penalty
can be levied in a case where rental income is assessed under the head ‘Income
from House Property’ as against ‘Income from Business’ as returned by the
assessee – Held, No.

 



Per S. V. Mehrotra :

Facts :


The assessee-company was engaged in the business of glass
vials and bottles. One of the issues before the Tribunal was whether the AO was
justified in levying a penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of the assessment of
rental income under the head ‘Income from House Property’ as against the
assessee’s claim of it being chargeable under the head ‘Income from Business’.

Held :

The Tribunal found that out of the gross receipt of Rs.23.14
lacs, the sum of Rs.11.14 lacs received by the assessee was by way of
reimbursement of expenses incurred towards electricity and telephone. And the
balance sum of Rs.12 lacs was credited by the assessee to miscellaneous receipts
account and shown accordingly in the Profit and Loss Account. According to the
Tribunal this was a case of honest difference of opinion between the assessee
and the Department on whether rental income was assessable as ‘Income from House
Property’ or as ‘Business Income’. The Tribunal also observed that it was not
the case of the AO that the expenses incurred were not genuine. Thus, the
explanation of the assessee that the income was assessable as income from
business was found bona fide one. Therefore, the Tribunal held that this
case cannot be said to be a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
According to the Tribunal the assessee had not concealed any facts from the
Department and, therefore, no penalty can be levied u/s. 271(1)(c).

You May Also Like