9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealment of income under the main provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and reference to Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the CIT(A) was unwarranted. Learned counsel for the assessee was unable to demonstrate that either the approach of the Tribunal was erroneous or perverse in any manner or that the findings of concealment recorded by the Tribunal are based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence or material on record which may warrant interference by this Court. - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 23 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 29-9-2015 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Sanjeev Manhas, Adv For the Respondent : None ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 148 IT Act, 1961? 3. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee is one of the sleeping partners in M/s Bedi Automobiles, Piplawala, Hoshiarpur since 4.7.2007. She is owner in possession of land measuring 13 kanal 12 marlas which was sold to one Surjit Singh representative of Jai Dev vide agreement to sell dated 8.8.2006 for a sale consideration of ₹ 37 lacs. The assessee introduced the said amount in capital addition to her capital account in the firm. Jai Dev got the sale deed registered on 8.8.2007 for ₹ 11,90,000/- to avoid stamp duty. The assessee under the impression that ₹ 37,00,000/- was capital gains and exempt from tax introduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,00,900/- and also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of the income. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 10.3.2011 (Annexure A-2) levied penalty of ₹ 8,44,050/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity the CIT (A) ]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 29.10.2013 (Annexure A-3) allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Being dissatisfied, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 25.8.2014 (Annexure A-4) allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(A). Hence, the present appeal by the assessee. 4. We have heard learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is whether return filed is voluntary return or not. In this regard, there is no dispute to the fact that the assessment in the case of M/s. Bedi Automobiles in which the assessee is a partner was made much before the issuance of notice u/s 148 to the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee partner Smt. Bhupinder Kaur was not aware of such fact, as noticed in the reasons recorded by the A.O. The assessee proceeded to deposit tax on 03.02.2010 amounting to ₹ 2.25 lacs which is a part payment against tax payable after payment of advance tax of ₹ 12,89,333/-, as claimed by the assessee in the submission dated 04.03.2011. The return u/s 139(4) should have been filed up to 31.03.2009 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or has furnished inaccurate particulars thereof and the assessee is liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.2. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed that it cannot be said with certainty that as to whether the return filed by the assessee is a voluntarily return or it has been filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the assessee in all probability. The Ld. CIT(A) cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. The finding of the ld. CIT(A) cannot hold good for the reasons that the return filed by the assessee is a non est return, as has been held hereinabove by us. The return cannot be said to be voluntary return as per our findings hereinabove. The assessee falls under the main section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
