2013 (10) TMI 1179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or a consideration of Rs.1,26,04,166/-, allegedly, purchased in 1991 and 1996. After considering the documents on record, the cost of acquisition, vis-a-vis, the appellant, was found to be Rs.70,078/-. The Assessing Officer also found that properties had been purchased on 29.5.1998 and not in the year 1991-92 as claimed by the assessee. The assessee was unable to tender any explanation, thereby in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s further submitted that an inadvertent error, relating to cost of acquisition of the assets, has been wrongly held to be sufficient to invite penalty. The burden to prove intention to evade tax has not been discharged by the revenue, thereby rendering the penalty illegal and void. We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold that any substantia .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed an appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal. The findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer were affirmed but the penalty has been reduced from 300% to 100% by taking a lenient view of the matter. The findings recorded b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X