TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 977
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act ?" 3. The Respondent-assessee is in the business of Real Estate Development. For the Assessment Year 2005-06, the Respondent-assessee on 31 October 2005 filed its return of income, declaring a income of Rs. 2.04 crores claiming 100% deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer 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 (built up area). Consequently, by Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (CIT(A)). By order dated 9 December 2010 the CIT (A) confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. However, the confirmation was on a completely new and different ground viz. that during search proceedings, the Respondent-assessee had made disclosure that the project in respect of which Section 801B(10) of the Act was being claimed was not completed before the due date i.e. 31 March 2008. Thus confirming the order dated 30 March 2010. It is to be noted that CIT(A) in its order did not deal with the issue on which the Assessing Officer had initiated and confirmed the penalty upon the Respondent-assessee. 7. Being aggrieved the Responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no furnishing of inaccurate particulars and/ or concealing of income warranting the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Mr. Chhotaray, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges that the very fact that the Respondent-assessee has withdrawn an appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in quantum proceeding on the ground it is not entitled to the benefit of Section 80IB(10) of the Act, penalty must follow. Therefore, CIT(A) was justified in imposing the penalty on a new ground as the powers of the CIT(A) are coterminus with that of the Assessing Officer, therefore, he could do all that the Assessing Officer could have done. 9. It is undisputed position before us that initiation of penalty und....