TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Successful Appeal Against Tax Assessment and Penalty for 2008-09</h1> <h3>Sabeena Khanam, Village Chandiyana, Post Bugrashi Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-3 (2) Bulandshahr</h3> Sabeena Khanam, Village Chandiyana, Post Bugrashi Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-3 (2) Bulandshahr - TMI Issues:1. Assessment u/s 144/147 for the assessment year 2008-092. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the same assessment yearAnalysis:1. The appellant filed appeals against orders related to assessment and penalty proceedings. The case involved the purchase of an immovable property valued at a higher amount than declared. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition to the income, treating the excess amount as undisclosed income. The appellant claimed to have purchased the property from her father for a total consideration of Rs. 10 lacs, paid over five years from savings, gifts, and agricultural income. The appellant provided supporting documents and affidavits confirming the payment structure. The appellant argued that the addition was unjustified based on the source of income and cited relevant legal precedents.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted part of the explanation, considering Rs. 5 lacs as explained from agricultural income but confirmed the rest as undisclosed investment. However, the ITAT Delhi, after reviewing the sale deed and supporting documents, found that the payments were made over time, not in the assessment year. The tribunal noted the appellant's sole source of income was agricultural and accepted the declared agricultural income. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that the investment in the property was explained by savings from agricultural income, and no addition under section 69 was warranted. The tribunal deleted the addition upheld by the CIT(A).3. Regarding the penalty under section 271(1)(c), since the tribunal had already deleted the addition, the basis for the penalty ceased to exist. Consequently, the penalty levied on the same amount was deemed unsustainable and quashed. Both appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the orders were pronounced on 21st February 2019.
TaxTMI 