9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nuine or was inflated to reduce its tax liability. Before us, Ld.A.R. has given the reasons for not offering the capital gains to tax initially but was offered subsequently in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The submissions have not been controverted by the Revenue nor have they been found to be untrue. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that assessee had concealed the particulars of income. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and also relying on the decision of Bombay ITAT in the case of NSE IT Ltd., Vs. DCIT [ 2018 (3) TMI 1585 - ITAT MUMBAI] we are of the view that in the present case no case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has been made out. We thus direct the del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levied penalty of ₹ 1,05,942/- for concealing the income. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 16.01.2017 (in appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)-1/714/2015-16) upheld the penalty levied by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income in respect of long term capital gains amounting to ₹ 8,24,455/-. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us. 5. Before us, Ld.A.R. reiterated the submissions made before AO and Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that assessee was under bonafide belief that the profits on sale of shares were exempt from tax. Subsequently, when it came to his knowledge that as assessee had not paid security transaction tax, the amount of capital gain tax was not exempt, he paid the tax. He submitted that non-offering of capital gains initially was not with any malafide intention and was due to the bonafide belief that the capital gains was exempt from tax. Later on, coming to know the correct position of law, assessee offered the capital gains and also paid the taxes. He therefore submitted that the case of assessee cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to offer an explanation, which is not found by the authorities to be false, and assessee has been able to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same have been disclosed by him, then in that case penalty shall not be imposed. 8. A case for levy of penalty for concealment of income has to be evaluated in terms of provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c), as per which if in relation to any addition in the assessment, the assessee offers no explanation or offers explanation which is found to be false or is not able to substitute the explanation and is also not able to prove that the explanation is bonafide, the addition made would amount to concealment of particulars, of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
