| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण (cid:7008)यायपीठ कोलकाता , |

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER &

DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 674/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Chandravadan Desai SB Tower, 3rd Floor 37, Shakespeare Sarani Circus Avenue S.O. Kolkata - 700017 [PAN : AABDH5812Q]

V s

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Kolkata

अपीलाथ(cid:7278) (Appellant) (cid:7079)(cid:7004)य थ(cid:7278) (Respondent)

/ /

Assessee by : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R.

Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R सुनवाई क(cid:7409) तारीख Date of Hearing : 06/02/2024 /

घोषणा क(cid:7409) तारीख Date of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 /

आदेश O R D E R /

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short ‘ld. First Appellate Authority’) dt. 09/05/2023 which is arising out of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), dt. 30/12/2016 relevant to Assessment Year 2014-15 framed by ACIT, Circle-32, Kolkata.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower authorities inspite of being aware that Chandravadan Desai HUF had been partitioned and had ceased to exist upon its partition on the 26th day of March 2014, and the impugned penalty order passed by the AO in the name of Chandravadan Desai HUF, a non-existent person was invalid, and therefore the order deserves to be cancelled.

2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not quashing the impugned penalty order for the reason that the AO was unjustified in levying penalty for alleged concealment of particulars, whereas penalty had been initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to the above, the impugned order ought to be declared ab initio void for being barred by limitation.

4. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to the above and even on merits, there was no concealment of particulars by the appellant and in that view of the matter the penalty of Rs.2,47,33,142/-levied by the AO deserves to be deleted.

5. For that the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds and/or amend or alter the grounds already taken either at the time of hearing of the appeal or before.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and it filed its return of income on 28/07/2014 declaring Nil income. Case selected for scrutiny under CASS followed by issuance and service of notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Various details as called for were filed along with producing documents and books of accounts. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee HUF has undergone partition and deed of dissolution made on 26th day of March, 2014, where the party by way of mutual agreement amongst themselves agreed to separate. Thus, the ld. Assessing Officer was having the information that assessee HUF has been dissolved on 26/03/2014. Now, the ld. Assessing Officer while examining the computation of income and other details noticed that during the year, at the time of dissolution of the HUF, the equity shares held by the HUF were transferred to the members of the HUF and though they were transferred at the cost of acquisition but in the computation of income, long term capital loss has been claimed at Rs.7,29,59,117/-

arising on account of transfer of equity shares to the member and for arriving at the said long term capital loss, market price as on the date of transfer of such equity shares has been taken as the basis. The ld. Assessing Officer further noticed that even though the transfer of the equity shares held with the HUF to its members is not recor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document