Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (3) TMI 1464

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed in law as well as on facts while confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 14,58,600/-. 2. Because, the Ld. Lower authorities have erred while levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) treating declaration of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- as Long term Capital gains as wrong and erroneous. 3. Because even otherwise Assessee bonafidely declared Rs. 130,00,000/- as Income from Long term Capital gains as the said amount was part and Parcel of sale of Property though Assets comprise of Furniture & Fixtures only. 4. Because even otherwise Penalty of Rs,14,58,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) have been levied as the amount of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- have been treated as the Income from other sources i.e. only on Account of change of Head. 5. Because even otherwise change of Head .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re sold was neither affixed to the building structure nor was a capital asset. He, therefore, observed that since the assessee was not regularly trading in furniture, the sale consideration received against sale of furniture, being the solitary transaction, would be treated as income from other sources. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after deducting the estimated cost of furniture to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/-, added the remaining sum of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- to the income of the assessee as income from other sources. 3. In quantum appeal, the ld. CIT(A) reversed the above view of Assessing Officer observing that furniture and fixture sold for Rs. 1.5 crores was an integral part of the sale consideration of assessee's share in property and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... information about the income, which the assessee did in the instant case. Merely because the income declared under one head was held taxable in other head, would not amount to satisfy the ingredient of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer being not satisfied by the explanation of the assessee, imposed penalty of Rs. 14,58,600/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income after relying on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 51. The appeal filed against penalty order stood dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by relying on various decision, vide the impugned order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e impugned order and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has distinguished all the decisions relied by the assessee and has also given distinguishing features in the impugned order. It was submitted that the assessee had shown the income under the head 'income from long term capital gains' instead of 'income from other sources', which alludes that the assessee has concealed the true particulars of income, entailing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. He strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the particulars of income of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- was declared by the assessee in its return of income, taxable as lo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the assessee, which appear to have wrongly been distinguished by the ld. CIT(A) in the attending facts of the present case. It is also notable that there is no comments of the authorities below on declaration of the impugned amount in the return of income, though it was shown under different. Only the head of income has been changed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there being no concealment of the impugned sale consideration on the part of assessee, we do not find it a fit case to impose penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. No contrary material is laid on record on behalf of the Revenue to sustain the impugned order. The decisions relied by the ld. CIT(A) do not contain the facts as involved in the present case. Accordingly, the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates