9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the action of the ld. A.O of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 3,08,738/- in respect of the rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. 3) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete, change or vary all or any of the ground or grounds of appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the present case assessment for assessment year (AY) 2012-13 was completed on 31.03.2015. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order made various additions / disallowances including of disallowance of deduction under section 54F of Rs. 14,98,727/-. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the addition / disallowance of deduction under section 54F was upheld. At the time of passing assessment order, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide notice dated 31.03.2015. The assessee contested the penalty proceedings and submitted that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is imposed against the assessee in view of several decisions of Tribunal and Hon'ble High Courts. The case laws relied by assessee were held to be not applicable on the facts of the assessee's case and distinguished by As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act dated 31.03.2015 was not a valid and proper notice as the Assessing Officer has not struck out inappropriate portion in the said notice, specifying as to whether the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The assessee also relied on the various case laws. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee upheld the order of Assessing Officer by referring the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya And Otrs. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom). The Ld. CIT(A) further held that Assessing Officer made addition on elaborate discussion. Penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was very well aware about the issue in the assessment, on the basis of addition was made and dismissed the additional ground raised by assessee. On the merit of penalty, the CIT(A) held that addition made under section 54F have been upheld upto the level of Tribunal. The assessee has not substantiate his claim and failed to prove that explanation was bona fide and upheld the penalty levied und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctory (2013) 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Kar); Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engg. Co. Vs. CIT (2006) 155 Taxman 513 (Guj) and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj). The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that in all cases, the penalty order was quashed, which was passed without specific charges in the show cause notice. 7. On the merit of case, which is assailed in Ground No.2, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that in quantum assessment the addition of disallowance of exemption under section 54F was confirmed on the ground that one flat owned by assessee was used for business purposes of a partnership firm by taking view that such contention of assessee does not inspire confidence of the Bench as no evidence substantiating such use of flat for business purposes were submitted. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits copy of decision of Hon'ble Tribunal is placed on record. From the contents of the order of Hon'ble Tribunal, it is clearly emerges that use of said flat for business purposes is not found to be false. It was affirmed for the want of evidence that it is not case that assessee failed to offer an explanation with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in claiming wrong deduction of capital gains. The submission of Ld. AR of the assessee is that assessee was not made aware about the specific charges in the notice under section 271(1)(c) is misplaced and assessee right from the proposed disallowance in the assessment order was very well aware about the furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for claiming exemption of LTCG. 10. On the merit of the penalty, the Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue submits that Assessing Officer made disallowance of deduction under section 54F, the same was upheld by Ld. CIT(A). The disallowance was further upheld by this Tribunal with a detailed reasoning. Once, the disallowance made by Assessing Officer has been affirmed by First Appellate Authority as well as Second Appellate Authority (Tribunal) and none of the authorities have gave any finding that assessee was not at fault. The Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue submits that order of Ld. CIT(A) may be affirmed and appeal of assessee may be dismissed. 11. In short rejoinder submission, Ld. AR of the assessee submits that Hon'ble apex court in T Ashok Pai Vs CIT ([2007] 161 Taxman 340 (SC)/[2007] 292 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
