9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant's case. 2. In confirming the levy of penalty on a matter which involved fair market valuation as of 1.4.1981 where the appellant had relied upon a report made by a registered value. 3. In confirming the levy of a penalty on issue of deductibility of transfer fees which had as such been actually 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 Rs. 1,50,200/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transfer fees of Rs. 4,09,833/- and Rs. 1,03,909/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has computed the Long Term Capital Gain to the tune of Rs. 1,02,97,140/- as against Capital gain offered by the assessee amounting to Rs. 77,55,636/-. Subsequently, the Hon'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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee, it came into notice that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 1.36 crores on account of sale of flat which had not been offered for taxation. Beside this the assessee was having accounts in three banks and copies of banks accounts revealed total credit of Rs. 2.13 crores. Thereafter the assessee filed the return of income for A.Y. 1994-95 declaring taxable income of Rs. 80,40,390/- on 09.03.2001. In the said return the assessee offered the capital gain to the tune of Rs. 77,55,636/- on account of sale proceeds received by him at Rs. 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 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axation in the A.Y.1994- 95 except this an amount of Rs. 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 Rs. 77,55,636/- on account of sale proceed received by him at Rs. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
