ITAT remands penalty decision in land cost disallowance case, citing ownership issues.

The ITAT upheld the disallowance of land cost attributable to the land sold by APHB on 500 LIG houses based on ownership and registration issues. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income, which was challenged by the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty for the disallowance sustained by the ITAT, citing that making an inadmissible claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Revenue appealed, and the ITAT remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the penalty imposition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of various expenses in the assessment year 2007-08.
2. Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer.
3. Appeal against the penalty order before the CIT(A).
4. CIT(A)'s decision on the penalty imposition.
5. Appeal by the revenue against CIT(A)'s order.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Various Expenses
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad regarding disallowances made during the assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer referred the case to the TPO for determining the Arm's Length Price of the international transaction. The final assessment order included several disallowances and additions, which were challenged by the assessee before the ITAT. The ITAT deleted most of the additions, except for the disallowance of land cost attributable to the land sold by APHB on 500 LIG houses. The ITAT upheld this disallowance based on ownership and registration issues.

Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against the assessee while the appeal was pending before the ITAT. The assessee argued that since the appeal was pending, the penalty proceedings should be dropped. However, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,86,60,998/- citing concealment of income. The assessee appealed against this penalty order before the CIT(A).

Issue 3: Appeal Against Penalty Order
The assessee challenged the penalty order before the CIT(A), arguing that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) considered the ITAT's decision to delete most additions and concluded that penalty on those deleted additions should also be dropped. Regarding the remaining disallowance sustained by the ITAT, the CIT(A) referred to the Supreme Court's decision and deleted the penalty imposed.

Issue 4: CIT(A)'s Decision on Penalty Imposition
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty in respect of additions deleted by the ITAT. For the remaining disallowance sustained by the ITAT, the CIT(A referred to the Supreme Court's decision and ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the mere making of an inadmissible claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deleted for that specific disallowance.

Issue 5: Appeal by the Revenue
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not have been equated with a wrong claim of deduction. They contended that the assessee consciously made a wrong computation of income. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and instructed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the penalty imposition after giving effect to the ITAT's order and providing the assessee with a hearing opportunity.

In conclusion, the appeal by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the penalty imposition in light of the ITAT's decision.

---