9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng any enquiry and entire receipt on account of sale consideration of agricultural was shown in the computation. Therefore, in our considered view, the CIT(A) was justified in canceling the levy of penalty. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) – Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No. 742/JP/2011 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2012 - SHRI R.K. GUPTA, SHRI N.L. KALRA, JJ. Appellant by : Shri D.K. Meena, DR Respondent by : Shri G.G. Mundra, DR ORDER PER R.K.GUPTA, JM The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT (A), Jaipur, dated 17.06.2011 relating to assessment year 2004-05. 2. The Department is objecting in deleting the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,41,732/- was imposed on tax of Rs.70,07,877/-. The AO held that the assessee was guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs.70,07,877/- . He held that in this case the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income by (a) not declaring the LTCG of Rs.62,95,467/- for tax in the original return and (b) claiming expenses of Rs.7,12,410/- (included in LTCG worked out at Rs.70,07,877/-) in the return of income despite the fact that the same were not incurred by him. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), before whom detailed written submissions were filed which are recorded at page 2 to 4 in the following manner: i) The assessee while preparing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted for the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 wherein payment of the said amount has been debited on Nov. 15, Nov. 24 and Jan. 15 which comes to Rs.7,12,410/- being the amount of stamp duty paid by the assessee. v) The AO observed that similar additions were made in respect of long term capital gain arising from the sale of agricultural land within 8 kms of municipal limits of Jaipur made for the same assessment year i.e. 2004-05 in the case of the assessee s father Sh. Vimalchand Surana and son Sh. Puneet Surana. It was submitted by the AR that these agricultural lands were in Tehsil Sanganer while the assessee s land was in Tehsil Amer. As this was not contiguous land, it could not be held that the assessee should have suo moto rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ras 4.9. to 4.13 at pages 4 5 of the order, are as under: 4.9. I have carefully perused the assessment order, penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the AO and submissions of the AR. It is a fact that the assessee was in possession of a certificate by Tehsildar stating that the assessee s agricultural land was beyond 8 kms from the municipal limits of Jaipur. This certificate was attached alongwith the return filed by the assessee on 17.11.2004. 4.10. On receipt of notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income declaring long term capital gain from sale of this land. It is pertinent to note that this revised return filed by the assessee was accepted by the AO as per computation in the assessment order alongwith long term capital gain de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return in his assessment order. Regarding the imposition of penalty of Rs.7,12,410/-, the addition was made by the AO on the basis of statements taken by him of the purchasers wherein they have admitted to have paid the sum. But in the sale deed, it is clearly mentioned that it was the assessee(seller) who had paid this amount and this fact was also verified from the account of the assessee furnished before me. 4.12. In view of the same, penalty imposed by the AO on tax on Rs.15,41,732/- u/s 271(1)(c) for filing of inaccurate particulars of his income is not upheld. 4.13. Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.15,41,732/- is therefore, deleted. 8. These findings of the CIT(A) neither can be controverted nor any other material was brough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
