9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 1973-74?" The assessee is a film artiste, in the assessment year 1973-74, in whose assessment, a number of additions were made. Penalty of Rs. 33,153 was levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in respect of two of the items, namely, and addition of Rs. 2,153 estimated as income from self-occupied residential property and Rs. 25,000 in respect of capital gains out of Gowrivakkam lands. On appeal, the Tribunal found that the construction of the property and the properties themselves were under the purview of the Income-tax Officer. The assessee had claimed that the residential property was occupied only in April, 1971. The Tribunal found that the income was a notional one and that there is no positive information that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to proceed with the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was therefore, pleaded that the Tribunal was not correct in deleting the penalty levied on both the items of property. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee while supporting the order passed by the Tribunal contended that the Tribunal on the basis of facts came to the conclusion that there was no concealment of income and, therefore, penalty is not exigible under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have heard both the learned standing counsel for the Department as well as learned counsel for the respondent assessee. The first item relates to a sum of Rs. 2,153 estimated as income from self-occupation of the property as Sadasivanagar, Ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income-tax. The admission is only for the purpose of taxing the income and not for the levy of penalty. The properties covered by the settlement petition and the order of the Tribunal should be applied to this property also. We are concerned with the capital gains on the sale of this property. This property was also under the scrutiny of the Income-tax Officer. The property was treated as belonging to the assessee on her voluntary admission. This admission was made as a measure of compromise subject to the condition that penalty will not be levied. Admittedly, the property was originally purchased in the name of the accountant, who in turn sold the same to the husband of the assessee. Since, the assessee admitted that the purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
