9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in the A.Y.1994- 95 except this an amount of ₹ 2.13 crores was also found in his three bank accounts. Apparently the sale transaction of the sale of flat of the assessee was not offered as tax on Long Term Capital Gain / Short Term Capital Gain if any in the relevant assessment year. After the survey assessee offered the capital gain to the tune of ₹ 77,55,636/- on account of sale proceed received by him at ₹ 19,37,250/- in respect of residential flat. It is correct that if the case of assessee is based upon only on the facts that the demand of the valuation report can be treated levy the penalty. But in this case the facts are otherwise. It is clear case of concealment of particulars of his income received on accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by the appellant and claimed as a cost related to the sale of property. 4. In passing an order on a ex-parte basis in the matter. 5. In confirming a penalty which was calculated at a tax rate including surcharge and cess. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y.1994-95 on 24.07.1995 declaring the total income of ₹ 1,50,200/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act ) for a reason that during the F.Y. relevant to A.Y. 1994-95, the assessee had received a sum of ₹ 1.36 crores on sale of flat for which the assessee did not offer the tax on the Capital Gain. These facts have been revealed at the time of survey action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble ITAT has restored the issue to the Learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has confirmed the said addition made by the Assessing Officer which was again upheld by the Hon ble ITAT. Thereafter the action u/s. 271(1)(c) was initiated and notice dated 15.02.2011 was served upon the assessee, who also replied the same by virtue of letter dated 03.03.2011. The Assessing Officer has held that the assessee has failed to established the genuineness of the cost of acquisition adopted by him and claimed of unexplained transfer fees and thereby suppress the Long Term Capital by ₹ 25,41,504/- hence, impose the penalty to the tune of ₹ 5,69,296/-. Thereafter the said penalty was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in the year in question. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s revealed total credit of ₹ 2.13 crores. Thereafter the assessee filed the return of income for A.Y. 1994-95 declaring taxable income of ₹ 80,40,390/- on 09.03.2001. In the said return the assessee offered the capital gain to the tune of ₹ 77,55,636/- on account of sale proceeds received by him at ₹ 1,36,61,100/- in respect of sale of residential flat no. 303, 3rd Floor, Prabhu Kutir Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Altamount Road, Mumbai. The said flat was purchased from Narendra Nath Trust to which he was sole beneficiary. The said flat was purchased for ₹ 52,000/- by the said Trust on 14.09.1963. Thereafter the assessee opted cost of acquisition of flat as on 04.04.1981 at ₹ 19,37,250/- vide its letter dated 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot offered as tax on Long Term Capital Gain / Short Term Capital Gain if any in the relevant assessment year. After the survey assessee offered the capital gain to the tune of ₹ 77,55,636/- on account of sale proceed received by him at ₹ 19,37,250/- in respect of residential flat. It is correct that if the case of assessee is based upon only on the facts that the demand of the valuation report can be treated levy the penalty. But in this case the facts are otherwise. It is clear case of concealment of particulars of his income received on account of above mentioned flat and furnishing inaccurate particulars by not disclosing the transaction in his return filed on 24.07.1995 declaring his total income to the tune of ₹ 1,50, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
