9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 07.09.2021. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "(1) On the facts of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the circumstances of the appellant of he being Non-resident Indian and his bona fides. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and acquired permanent Citizenship of Canada. The case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information that assessee made deposit of Rs.1.17 crores and also got interest income of Rs. 82,944/-. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has no mala fide intention to avoid pay tax. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer. Thereafter Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 3,35,137/- being @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded with regard to concealment of income of LTCG vide penalty order dated 07.09.2021. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written submission and the submission of assessee was recorded in para-4.1 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee in his submission, stated that assessee is an NRI, who is a Canadian Citizen. This is first matter of assessee before the Income Tax Department. The assessee was co-owners of immovable property, which was so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) also held that assessee cannot take plea that he was unaware of tax law as a simple query from anyone or on internet would have revealed that he is liable to pay tax on gain on sale of immovable property. The ignorance of law is an untenable plea. Further aggrieved, the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee and learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr DR) for the Revenue. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that during the relevant period under consideration, the assessee sold his ancestral property along with his brother on 24.10.2011 and assessee was having ½ share in the said ancestral property thereby out of total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing case law: * CIT vs. Ashok Taker [2008] 170 Taxman 471 (Del) * CIT vs. Rajnish Nath Aggarwal IT Appeal No.383 of 207 (2008) 8 DTR (P&H) 253 * JCIT vs. Signature (2005) 143 TAXMAN 28 (Del)(MAG) * DCIT vs. Chirag Metal Rolling Mills Ltd. [2007] 162 TAXMAN 317 (MP) * CIT vs. Sunil Chand Gupta [2013] 40 taxmann.com 307 (All) 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that ignorance of law is not excuse and assessee is an educated person and cannot take the plea that he was not aware about tax implication on surplus earned on sale of his ancestral property. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty was deleted. The order of ld CIT(A) was confirmed by Tribunal. On further appeal before Hon'ble High Court it was held that that Assessing Officer failed to bring on record any other material to show that conduct of the assessee was such that it warranted penalty. Thus, there was no error in the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Tribunal. 10. Further, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rajnish Nath Aggarwal (supra) also held that when assessee surrender income on account of uncorroborated freight charges debited in profit & loss account to buy peace of mind and further litigation, there was no question of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof in deleting the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not added back in the computation of income. Hence, the Assessing Officer added this amount also to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings were also initiated against the assessee. During penalty proceedings, the assessee claimed that it had committed a bona fide mistake and all the facts material to the computation were disclosed. The Assessing Officer was of the view that there was no difference of opinion as regards disallowance of these expenses and the incorrect computation given by the assessee was an act of paying less tax than what was due from it. He was of the view that the assessee was a big company, assisted by a team of Tax Auditors and, therefore, it was a case of concealment of income as well as of furnishing wrong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
