9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the return. The addition was on account of deeming provision, therefore, we delete the penalty confirmed by the ld CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 743/JP/2012 - - - Dated:- 5-6-2015 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) Revenue by : Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT) ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25/06/2012 passed by the learned CIT(A), Alwar for A.Y. 2008-09. The sole ground of appeal is as under:- 1 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Alwar has erred in imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act of ₹ 68116/- and sustained by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital given as per Section 50C of the Act and paid the tax on 19/3/2010. The returned income had been accepted as such, therefore, there was no concealment U/s 271(1)(c) as the assessee had suo moto disclosed the income. There was bonafide belief that the assessee had not concealed any particulars of income and not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer after relying on the decision of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mohd. Mohtram Farooqi 259 ITR 132 (Raj) and Badri Prasad Om Prakash Vs. CIT 163 ITR 440 (Raj) wherein surrendered after seizure cannot be said voluntarily and filed revised return after concealment were detected. The addition made by the Assessing Officer remained co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10/02/2010. Therefore, the deposit of tax on capital gains before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act will not mean that there is concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has filed its second return on 25/03/2010 in response to the notice U/s 148 dated 24/03/2010 which was served on 24/03/2010 and not on 25/03/2010 as stated by the ld. AR. This second return filed on 25/03/2010 cannot be treated as a revised return within the meaning of section 139(5) of the Act as the appellant had not filed its original return on time as per section 139(1) of the Act. In fact, on the said return itself, it has been mentioned in response to notice u/s 148 . (j) I find that the appellant had a motive to conceal its income as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50C at ₹ 8 lacs instead of ₹ 1235730/- in computation of capital gain as a result of which income under the head capital gains of (475658-39928) ₹ 435730/- was concealed. The appellant has not been able to lead any evidence to prove that lower income was shown in original return merely as a result of inadvertent mistake or omission. Thus, relying on the decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Prem Pal Gandhi Vs. CIT reported as 335 ITR 23 and in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the ld. A.O. has rightly imposed the penalty for concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹ 68,116/- which is also the minimum penalty leviable. Accordingly, the levy of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Harish Voovaya Shetty Ors. Vs. ITO (Mum) (Trib) ITA No. 6383/Mum/2012 dt. 03/07/2014 and prayed to delete the penalty. 5. At the outset, the Ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee had shown sale consideration at ₹ 8 lacs whereas as per Section 50C of the Act, the Stamp Authority has assessed the value of property at ₹ 12,35,730/-, there was difference at ₹ 4,75,658/- in the capital gain, which has been accepted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The case law referred by the assessee are squarely applicable. In this case also, there is no evidence with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
