Income Tax

No concealment penalty can be levied for only change of head of income – ITAT

No concealment penalty can be levied for only change of head of income – ITAT deleted penalty for change head from capital gains to business income

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2604 (2018) (11) ITAT

Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon:
M/s Crown Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The ACIT (OSD)
Hiralal Doshi, Mumbai Vs. Department of Income Tax
CIT vs. BENNETT Coleman & Co. Ltd. High Court of Bombay (2013) 259 CTR 0383 (Bom)
CIT vs. M/s Link Locks (P) Ltd. ITA No.6 of 2011 (All)

The assessee’s appeal was against confirmation of penalty levied on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

The assessee was sole proprietor engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of shoes. During the year, the assessee showed income under the head capital gains from the sale of flats.

However, the Assessing Officer (AO) held that the construction activity carried out by the assessee was with the motive of earning profit, and hence such activity fell under the head of business.

The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition and no further appeal was filed by the assessee.

Since the assessee was engaged in commercial activities of constructing flats and selling them, but at the same time showed such transactions as capital gain, the AO held that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income and that accordingly, the assessee was liable to penalty of u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

The penalty was also confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal observed that in a plethora of decisions it has been held that where there is only a change of head of income, no concealment penalty can be levied. Also no decision to the contrary the same was advanced by the Revenue.

The Tribunal accordingly, deleted both the penalties

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • ICAI

CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.

CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…

21 hours ago
  • Insurance

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act. Courts to award a composite…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price

CIT Revision notice u/s 263 quashed as the Assessing Officer rightly taken DVO value of property sold as actual sale…

3 days ago
  • GST

Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities

Extension of timeline for implementation of mandatory "Ship To GSTIN" and Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities GSTN Advisory dated…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT

No protective addition required in the hand of a third party when additions have been confirmed in the hands of…

4 days ago
  • arbitration

Limitation u/s 34 of Arbitration Act commences on disposal of application u/s 33 by Arbitral Tribunal – SC

Limitation for filing application u/s 34 of Arbitration Act commence from date on which application u/s 33 is disposed of…

1 week ago