9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding under clause (c) of Section 271(1). Hence, so far as the satisfaction of record by the AO in the assessment order there is no infirmity. As regards the certainty of charge since the penalty was initiated in respect of all three additions made by the AO out of which some additions fall in the category of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and other one which is the subject matter of the proceeding before us falls in the category of concealment of particulars of income. Therefore, the question of definite charge being furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income does not arise. It is a case of default on the part of the assessee falling under both limbs. In the penalty order U/s 271(1)(c) the AO has clearly made out in a case in para 3 by holding that the non disclosure of sale consideration of ₹ 59,04,000/- received in cash is clearly concealment on the part of the assessee. The AO has levied the penalty in respect of all additions on which both the limbs were attracted then we do not see any error or illegality in the order passed by the AO U/s 271(1)(c). The decision relied upon the ld. AR will not help the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidual and jointly with his brother sold agricultural land at Village Ramsinghpura, Tehsil Sanganer on 28.12.2010 and 09.02.2011 for a total consideration of ₹ 5,66,78,800/- in which the assessee s share come to ₹ 2,78,39,400/-. The assessee filed his return of income on 21.02.2013 declaring long term capital gain at ₹ 64,61,650/- after claiming the deduction Under Section 54B and 54F of the Act. The AO has completed the assessment U/s 143(3) by making the additions inter alia on account of undisclosed sale consideration received in cash of ₹ 59,04,000/-. The other additions made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction Under sections 54B 54F of the Act were deleted by this Tribunal in quantum appeal and the order of this Tribunal has been confirmed by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court . In the mean time, the AO initiated the proceeding U/s 271(1)(c) and levied the penalty of ₹ 55,83,424/- vide order dated 31.03.2017. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act only to the extent of the addition made on account of undisclosed sale consideration received in cash. The penalty levied in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... naccurate particulars of income and therefore, penalty order passed by the AO is legally not sustainable. 3.1 Alternatively, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that it is a case of bonafide mistake in filing the return in as much as the assessee has provided the copy of bank account and sale deed to the counsel. The cash amount was deposited in the bank account but the counsel while preparing the return has failed to consider the same and the assessee being not conversant with the technicalities of filing the return as prepared by the counsel and thus, there was bonafide mistake in not offering such amount for tax which was suo moto stated by the assessee when he was enquired about the deposit in the bank account. Thus, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that for such bonafide mistake the penalty should not be levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that it is not a case of the assessee that he apprised the tax consultant all the correct facts about the sale consideration but only when the AO has examined the assessee about the cash deposit in the bank account the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it was detected by the AO only during the course of assessment proceedings and inquiry conducted by the AO. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on account of sale consideration received in cash which is subject matter of the appeal before us is clearly a case of concealment of particulars of income. Hence, at the time of recording the satisfaction the AO has clearly set out of the charges of major disallowance in respect of claim of deduction U/s 54B 54F which falls in the category of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, so far as the satisfaction recorded by the AO in view of Section 271(1B) of the Act once the AO has clearly recorded the satisfaction in the assessment order the same shall be deemed to constitute a satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceeding under clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act. Hence, so far as the satisfaction of record by the AO in the assessment order there is no infirmity. As regards the certainty of charge since the penalty was initiated in respect of all three additions made by the AO out of which some additions fall in the category of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and other one wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- Net capital gain = ₹ 64,61,550/- During the assessment proceedings from the details filed by the assessee it is found that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54B ₹ 1,60,00,000/- on purchase of agriculture land on 19/12/2012 and u/s 54F ₹ 52,00,000/- on construction of residential house. On perusal of the details filed by the assessee, it is found that the assessee has purchased a agriculture land on 19/12/2012 Khasra No.3541 situated at Village Tigariya, Tehsil Chomu measuring 3.78 Hectare land for total sale consideration of ₹ 1,50,0,00,000/- from Mr. Jagdish and others. Assessee has also incurred stamp duty charges of ₹ 80,000/- and registration charges etc. of ₹ 6,87,190/-. Regarding claim under section 54F of ₹ 52,00,000/-, the assessee has submitted a copy of valuation report from registered valuer in which total estimated construction value of the house constructed by the assessee is determined at ₹ 47,00,000/- as against ₹ 52,00,000/- claimed by the assessee. The AO has le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
