Case Law Details
Ramprasad Kamtaprasad Nigam Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai recently delivered a crucial decision in the case of Ramprasad Kamtaprasad Nigam vs. ITO concerning the imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal for the Assessment Year 2015-16 challenges the penalty order dated 22/06/2018. This analysis aims to provide insights into the facts of the case, the arguments presented, and the tribunal’s rationale in arriving at its decision.
Background: The appellant filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,67,710. The appellant claimed an exemption under Section 54F for Rs. 32,81,600 related to the purchase of a flat in the Mahakali Nagar SRA project. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the exemption claim during scrutiny, resulting in an addition of Rs. 10,51,830 towards capital gains.
Penalty Proceedings: Subsequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated, alleging “concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” The AO imposed a minimum penalty of Rs. 2,18,737 on 22/06/2018. The appellant challenged this penalty order before the CIT(A).
CIT(A) Decision: The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on 16/06/2023, citing the appellant’s failure to respond to notices and effectively prosecute the appeal. The CIT(A) emphasized that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and willful concealment is not a prerequisite for imposing this civil liability. It was noted that on the date of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) execution, the project lacked approval, and the appellant had no title to the flat. The CIT(A) also referred to a jurisdictional High Court decision to support the conclusion.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
