9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ITA No. 26/JP/2023 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2023 - SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Assessee by: Sh. Rajeev Sogani(CA) And Smt. Shivangi Samdhani (CA) Revenue by: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 24/11/2022 [here in after (NFAC)/ ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2014-15 which in turn arise from the order dated 02.03.2020 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, by ITO, Ward-1(4), Jaipur. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in considering that the assessee disputed all the additions made by Id. AO in appeal and, accordingly, settled all the additions in Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The action of the Id. CIT-(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Appropriate relief may please be granted. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in considering that penalty amounting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whole amount paid in advance received back. The assessee submitted an affidavit with details in this regard and submitted that the assessee wrongly claimed (-) 14,10,754/- loss in the capital gain and the same was withdrawn and requested not to allow. Further, the AO disallowed claim of Rs. 7,48,979/- made by the assessee on account of section 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In fact, the assessee made investment in purchase of house in the name of her son Anubhav Jain and daughter in law Smt. Soni Jain and on this basis, deduction u/s 54 was claimed for Rs. 7,48,979/-. As the assessee made wrong claim and furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of above referred income therefore penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated thereon vide notice dated 16.06.2016 for filing its reply by 18.07.2016 and got served by hand on 11.07.2016. It is clear that the assessee deliberately and willfully furnished inaccurate particulars by making wrong claim of Rs. 1,4,10,754/- and Rs. 7,48,979/- therefore the case found fit for imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Accordingly, I am satisfied with the facts hence, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 to the tune of notional tax effect @ 30% of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong Term Capital Loss of Rs. 14,10,754 Aggrieved by said assessment order the assessee filed appeal before Hon ble CIT(A). The assessee challenged disallowance of deduction u/s 54 of Rs. 7,48,979 i.e. just first issue [PB 1-2]. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed and disallowance was confirmed [PB 3-15]. Thereafter, the assessee filed second appeal before Hon ble ITAT and challenged the order of Hon ble CIT(A). Again the assessee challenged disallowance of deduction u/s 54 of Rs. 7,48,979 i.e. just first issue [PB 16-18] Pending disposal of ITAT appeal, Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was announced. As per the scheme if appeal of the assessee was pending before ITAT as on 31.01.2020 the assessee was eligible to opt for the scheme. The assessee decided to opt into the scheme. As per the provisions of section 2(o) of DTVSV Act tax arrear means: (i) The aggregate amount of disputed tax, interest chargeable or charged on such disputed tax, and penalty leviable or levied on such disputed tax. Thus, the assessee could settled the disputed tax on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 54 and the penalty levied or leviable thereon. In the meantime penalty was imposed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he question no. 8 and Question no. 34 of the clarifications issued by the CBDT dated 22/04/2020 and thus submitted that since both the appeal of the assessee stands as withdrawn there cannot be a dispute with the assessee. 9. In the rejoinder the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that since the penalty was levied on the two issue and assessee has preferred to settle only one issue the revenue should not recover the demand related to the dispute which has not been settled by the assessee in VSVS and the penalty appeal of the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn without affording proper opportunity of being heard. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that there were two issues on which the penalty was levied and the assessee has settled the dispute related to the one addition in VSVS. The ld. AR of the assessee also drawn our attention that she has filed an application for rectification of order passed u/s. 250 of the Act dated 24.11.2022 vide her application dated 28.03.2023 (APB page 37). Since the said application is not attended and looking to the concern of the assesses as prudent tax payer she has moved this appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
