9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madan Theatres Ltd. (2013 (6) TMI 96 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ) will not be applicable in the present case. From the appreciation of facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has not fully and truly disclosed all material facts which are necessary for the assessment. The assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The assessee in his return of income suppressed the actual sale consideration of land and also the rental income, thus, making him liable for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 1533/PN/2011 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2015 - SHRI R.K. PANDA AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JJ. For The Assessee : Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal dated 12.09.2013 (supra) is recalled as above and the matter shall be posted for a fresh hearing before the regular Bench. Registry is directed to re-post the appeal in due course before the regular bench. In the light of this background, the appeal is listed before the Bench for de novo adjudication. 3. Before we proceed with the merits of the case it would be essential to examine brief facts of the case. The assessee is an individual and is conducting coaching class for law students. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 on 31-01-2005 declaring total income of ₹ 24,63,868/-. In the return of income, the assessee inter alia offered Long Term Capital Gains of ₹ 17,50,928/-. During t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e consideration receipt. However, during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer directed the assessee to adopt the market value of the land as per stamp valuation as required u/s. 50C of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed revised return declaring the sale consideration of ₹ 36,50,000/- and computed the Capital Gains thereon. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is not a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in terms of section 271(1)(c). The Capital Gains have been revised by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. To support his submissions the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve perused the orders of the authorities below. We have also examined the judgment on which the ld. Counsel has placed reliance. In the original return of income filed on 31-01-2005, the assessee disclosed sale consideration of land situated at old S. No. 9 and new S. No. 11 at Katraj, Pune as ₹ 29,00,000/- and computed Long Term Capital Gains of ₹ 17,50,928/-. During the course of scrutiny assessment when the Assessing Officer asked for certain details and explanations after issuing questionnaire to the assessee, the assessee filed second return of income on 02-11-2006 admitting annual rental income of ₹ 25,200/- and sale consideration of land as ₹ 36,50,000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- and not ₹ 29,00,000/- as disclosed by the assessee in his original return of income filed on 31-01-2005. Further, the assessee in the second return of income filed on 02-11-2006 disclosed rental income of ₹ 25,200/- which was not earlier admitted by the assessee in his original return of income. It is relevant to mention here that subsequent return filed on 02-11-2006 by the assessee during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings cannot be accepted as revised return under the provisions of section 139(5), as the same was filed much after the lapse of time as specified under the Act. As per the provisions of section 139(5), the revised return can be filed before the expiry of one year of the end of relevant assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
