9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.2011 whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs.1,70,055/- imposed by the A.O. u/s.271(1)(c). 3. The assessee, in the present case, is an individual who filed his return of income on 25.04.2008 in response to notice u/s.153A declaring total income of Rs.52,24,490/-. In the assessment completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A, the total income of the assessee was determined by the A.O. at Rs.58,70,770/- after making the addition of Rs.3,57,730/- to the long-term capital gain declared by the assessee and Rs.2,29,117/- on account of income from bank interest. In his return of income, the assessee had declared long-term capital gain arising on sale of shares at Rs.79,18,020/- and after claiming deduction u/s.54F to the extent of Rs.37,99,661/-, net long ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of shares was claimed by the assessee at Rs.19,59,195/- while computing the long term capital gain. He submitted that the said claim of the assessee was accepted in the original assessment completed u/s.143(3). He submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A which took place after a period of 9 years, the assessee however could not substantiate the cost of the acquisition claimed by him due to afflux of time. He contended that there was however no incriminating material found during the course of search to show that the cost of acquisition of shares claimed by the assessee was wrong and it was actually less than what was claimed by the assessee. He submitted that the A.O. adopted the cost of acquisit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee in respect of which the impugned penalty has been imposed thus are not sustainable in the facts of the case and although the said additions have been accepted by the assessee, it is not the fit case to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c). 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, submitted that since the additions made to the total income of the assessee have been accepted by the assessee and they have become final, the adverse finding given in the assessment are themselves sufficient to show that it is a fit case to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c). He submitted that the assessee could not produce any documentary evidence to support and substantiate claim for cost of acquisition of shares and in the absence of such evidence, the A.O. was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show that the cost of acquisition of shares claimed by the assessee was on the higher side and the same was actually lower than what was claimed. The A.O., adopted the cost of acquisition of shares at Rs.2/- per share relying on the case of M/s. Ramesh D. Shah Family Trust. However, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the shares in the said case were purchased on 01.04.2003 while the assessee had purchased the shares in the year 2000 when the prevailing market prices of the shares as per market quotation was in the range of Rs.15/- to Rs.23/- per share. The addition made by the A.O. on account of long-term capital gain by adopting the cost of acquisition at Rs.2/- per share thus was without any basis and in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4), the assessee admitted the cash found during the course of search to the extent of Rs.2 lakh as his undisclosed income. In the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A, he however, declared Rs.1,85,000/- as his undisclosed income on account of cash found during the course of search. In the assessment completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A, the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- was added by the A.O. to the income of the assessee. During the course of search, jewellery amounting to Rs.15,94,687/- was also found from the residence of the assessee as well as his two bank lockers. Looking to the status of the assessee's family and considering the social custom, the A.O. treated the said jewellery to the extent of Rs.12,94,687/- as explain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the course of search only to the extent of Rs.1,85,000/- was surrendered by the assessee as his undisclosed income and the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- was duly explained as the cash belonging to his wife. Similarly, the jewellery found during the course of search was treated by the A.O. as 'unexplained' to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs rejecting the explanation offered by the assessee relying on the Board Circular. As per the said Circular No.1916 dated 11.05.1994, the jewellery which the assessee could have reasonably possessed taking into consideration the size of his family was to the extent of 1450 grams whereas the total jewellery found during the course of search from the possession of the assessee was to the extent of 1,442.56 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
