Case Law Details
Raghuram Garikapati Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.10,46,957/- pertaining to quantum addition arising from treatment of rental income (as to whether it came under the head ‘income from house property’ or ‘income from business’).
Learned departmental representative fails to dispute that the impugned issue is essentially regarding treatment of assessee’s rental income than involving concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Limited [322 ITR 158] (SC) holds that quantum and penalty are parallel proceedings wherein each and every disallowance/addition made in former does not ipso facto attract latter penal provision.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This assessee’s appeal for AY.2010-11 arises from the CIT(A)-10, Hyderabad’s order dated 31-03-2017 passed in case No.0026/CIT(A)-10/2015-16, in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Case called twice. None appeared at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
