9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and accounts submitted by his power of attorney S. Gurpal Singh. It is not in dispute that the amount so received from proceed of sale of agricultural land was exempted and AO also accepted the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 2(14)(iii). In this situation unable to accept this contention of the authorities that the assessee has either furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or has concealed particulars of his income. See Harsh Talwar (2011 (5) TMI 593 - Delhi High Court), Commissioner of Income Tax vs S.L.N. Traders (2011 (7) TMI 525 - Karnataka High Court) and Careers Education & Infotech Pvt. Ltd.(2011 (3) TMI 602 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) - In favour of assessee. - ITA No.3870/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2013 - Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy And Shri Chandramohan Garg,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri A. L. Sehgal For the Respondent : Shri David Z. Changthu ORDER Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-XXXIII, New Delhi dated 28.06.2012 in Appeal No. 1/10-11/149 by which the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) confirmed the penalty order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is prayed penalty of Rs. 99,000/-levied U / s 271 (1 )(c) may be cancelled. 6. That the appellant craves been to add, to alter or amend the aforesaid grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of appeal." 3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 153A of the Act on 02.07.2008 requiring the assessee to file the return of income for the assessment year under consideration i.e. 2004-05 being one of the six assessment years preceding to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted and in respect of which the assessee was assessable as an individual. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a return declaring taxable income of Rs.23,98,023/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,10,000 on 16.07.2008. The Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire. The Assessing Officer noticed there is cash deposit of Rs.3,00,000 on 04.09.2003 in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that the source of said cash deposit was receipts from sale proceeds of agricultural land and the sale deed was registered on 23.09.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence for delay in deposit of cash by late Shri Jasbir Singh who was looking after the assessee's affairs for more than 25 years. Ld. AR further submitted that the sale deed of agricultural land was executed by attorney of the assessee and he had himself received cash advance and deposited to the assessee's bank account which has been considered as undisclosed cash deposit found during the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. The AR placed his reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and following citations of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka:- 1. C.I.T. vs Ravi Kant Jain 250 ITR 141(Delhi) 2. Dang and Company Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT(2005) 277 ITR (AT)190(Delhi) 3. C.I.T. vs Chhabra Emporium 264 ITR 249(Delhi) 4. C.I.T. vs SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Delhi) 5. C.I.T. vs Harsh Talwar (2011) 335 ITR 200(Delhi) 6. C.I.T. vs Bhandari Silk Store (2011) 337 ITR 153 (P H) 7. C.I.T. vs Careers Education Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 257 (P H) 8. C.I.T. Another vs S.L.N. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale of agricultural land situation at Village Raja Sansi, District Amritsar by the assessee and DR has not disputed this fact that the assessee claimed exemption from capital gain on the said sale of agricultural land. 9. The AR has drawn our attention towards letter to Assessing Officer submitting the explanation to show cause notice u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act and submitted that the assessee has not concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of its income before the Assessing Officer. The AR further submitted that the cash received on sale of agricultural land on 23.09.2002 had been declared to the Assessing Officer who examined the bank account of the assessee and finalized the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. The AR further submitted that the transaction date of the sale of agricultural land came to the knowledge of the assessee on scrutiny of the bank account at the time of filing of ITR. The AR vehemently contended that the power of attorney holder of the assessee, late Shri Jasbir Singh died on 22.01.2007. Therefore, the assessee could not submit his affidavit or any other evidence to the fact that the assessee had no knowledge that the cash was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for attracting liability. We respectfully hold that benefit of the ratio of this judgment is not available to the revenue in the present case because we are unable to see any willful concealment of income by the assessee in the present case. 11. For levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to bring incriminating fact that the assessee has concealed particulars of its income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars of its income but the Assessing Officer merely considered the issue in a cryptic manner. The Assessing Officer finally jumped to the conclusion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income to the extent of Rs. 3 lakh. The first appellate authority also wrongly applied ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and confirmed the penalty without considering the main issue of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. To sum up, we hold that the findings of the authorities below are not sustainable in the light of factual matrix of the present case because we are unable to see any act on the part of the assessee that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
