By AJAY R. SINGH Advocate
CIT vs. Acme Associates. [ Income tax
Appeal no 640 of 2014 dated : 17/10/2016 (Bombay High Court)].
[Acme Associates vs. ACIT. [ITA No.
649/MUM/2011; Bench : I; dated 13/09/2013 ; A Y: 2005- 2006.( MUM.) ITAT ]
The assessee is in the business of Real
Estate Development. For the A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee has filed its ROI ,
declaring a income of Rs. 2.04 crore claiming 100% deduction u/s. 80IB(10).
During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that two
buyers, viz. Ms. Sulbha M. Waghle and Mr. Mangesh G. Waghle had entered into
joint agreement for purchase of flats which in the aggregate exceeded 1,000
sq.ft. Consequently, AO disallowed the deduction claimed u/s. 801B(10) and
initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) on the aforesaid ground for furnishing
inaccurate information/concealing income.
The assessee carried the issue in appeal to
the CIT(A). During pendency of the appeal, a search action u/s. 132 was carried
out on the assessee group. Consequent to which, notices u/s.153A were issued to
the assessee including one for the subject A Y 2005-06. In the above
circumstances, the assessee withdrew its appeal for A.Y. 2005-06 pending before
CIT(A). Thereafter, by order dated 30th March, 2010, the AO imposed
penalty upon assessee u/s. 271(1)(c). This was on the very ground on which the
AO had initiated penalty proceedings viz. selling of flats to two members of
the family which in the aggregate was in excess of 1000 sq.ft. of built up
area. Therefore concluding that the Assessee has furnished incorrect
particulars of income/concealed particulars of income. Consequently, a penalty
was imposed.
Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the
order of the AO imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) to CIT(A). The CIT (A)
confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO. However, the confirmation was on a
completely new and different ground viz. that during search proceedings, the
assessee had made disclosure that the project in respect of which deduction
u/s. 801B(10) was being claimed was not completed before the due date i.e. 31st
March 2008. Thus confirming the order dated 30th March, 2010.
It is to be noted that CIT(A) in its order did not deal with the issue on which
the AO had initiated and confirmed the penalty upon the assessee.
Being aggrieved, the assessee filed a
further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the initiation and
confirmation of penalty by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) was not on the ground that the
project was not completed by the due date, on which the CIT (A) confirmed the
penalty. Thus, the Tribunal held that this could not be done by the CIT(A) as
the penalty proceedings were initiated on account of selling flats of an area
in excess of 1000 sq.ft. i.e. a ground different from the ground on which
the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. The
order also noted the fact that at the time when the return of income was filed
on 31st October 2005, it was not possible to predict whether the
project would be completed on or before the specified date 31st
March 2008. Further, the Tribunal also examined the issue on which the
Assessing Officer had imposed penalty, namely, selling of two flats to the
members of same family, the area of which in the aggregate exceeded 1000 sq.ft.
built up and held that no material was brought on record that assessee had
constructed a flat of more than 1000 sq.ft. built up area or that the assessee
had sold any unit of more than 1000 sq.ft. It renders a finding of fact that
after units had been sold the buyers had joined two flats resulting in a flat
in excess of 1000 sq.ft. In the aforesaid view, the Tribunal held that there is
no furnishing of inaccurate particulars and/ or concealing of income warranting
the imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c).
The Hon. High Court in the revenue appeal
held that, it was the original ground on basis of which penalty was initiated,
that the assessee was required to offer explanation during penalty proceedings
to establish that the claim as made in the return of income was not on account
of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income vis-a-vis
of selling flat having area 1000 sq.ft. The AO under the Act also considered
the assessee’s explanation in the context in which the penalty proceedings were
initiated and did not rightly place any reliance upon the subsequent events. In
an appeal from the order of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) could not have
imposed penalty on a new ground which was not the basis for initiation of
penalty. The appeal before the CIT(A) was with regard to issue of penalty u/s.
271(1)(c) only on the ground on which the penalty proceedings were initiated in
the assessment order. Although the powers of CIT(A) are coterminous with that
of the AO, the imposition of penalty could be only the ground on which it was
initiated. This is not the case, where the CIT(A) had independently initiated
penalty proceedings on a new ground in an order in quantum proceedings in
appeal from the Assessment Order. This alone could lead to the imposition of
penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on the new ground. The ground on which the penalty was
initiated and penalty imposed by the AO, namely, that the flat had been sold in
the project which was in excess of 1000 sq.ft., the Tribunal has recorded a
finding of fact that the flats were sold individually by two separate
agreements individually to the purchasers in joint names. However, two flats
were subsequently joined by the purchasers aggregating the size of two flats to
1000 sq.ft. built up purchased from the assessee. This is finding of fact which
has not been shown to be perverse or arbitrary. In the above view, revenue
appeal was dismissed.
