9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee is an individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed her return of income on 31st March 2014, declaring total income of Rs. 1,87,790. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that as per the annual information report (AIR) available on record, the assessee along with Smt. Gulshan Tashe, sold an immovable property situated at Mauje Kasha, bearing survey no.13/1, admeasuring 4670 sq.mtrs. to M/s. Sairaj Developers, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,85,24,500. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued a questionnaire to the assessee on 7th November 2014, calling upon her to furnish copy of sale deed, valuation report with working of long term capital gain, etc. In response, the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be brought to tax. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that her share in the property is only to the extent of 17%. After accepting the aforesaid claim of the assessee, the Assessing Officer computed assessee's share in long term capital gain at Rs. 52,07,325 and added to the income of the assessee. On the basis of such addition, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and ultimately the Assessing Officer by a separate order dated 23th July 2015, imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for an amount of Rs. 16,51,290. Subsequently, by an order passed under section 154 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Authorised Representative submitted, since the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction with regard to the exact nature of violation committed by the assessee as per section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty order passed is invalid. 4. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, had assessee's case not been selected for scrutiny, the capital gain would have escaped taxation. Therefore, the assessee had knowingly and deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed income for which levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified. 5. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. It is not in dispute that o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
