9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee, that the assessment proceedings had been initiated to enquire into the aspect of sale of immovable properties by the assessee. Contention that the revised return of income was filed beyond the due prescribed date, it has been brought to our attention that the return of income was filed online and the same was accepted by the Department website and accordingly the same has been validated by the Department. It is a well-settled principle of law that if the assessee has made disclosure in the return of income, without the Department having brought the fact of omission on part of the assessee to the notice of the assessee, then it cannot be inferred that the revised return was filed pursuant to the omission having been detected by the Department. we are of the considered view that nothing has been brought forth by the Department to substantiate that the revised return of income was filed in pursuance to information contained in notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, we are hereby deleting the penalty imposed under section u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 292/Rjt/2018 - - - Dated:- 16-5-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 51,83,487/-. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed that in the original return of income, the assessee had shown income of Rs. 14,49,880/- but in the said return of income, the assessee had not declared the aforesaid capital gains. It was only during the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee filed revised return of income declaring long-term capital gains of Rs. 51,83,487/- on sale of the aforesaid properties. The assessee s contention was that assessee had inadvertently omitted to disclose the aforesaid capital gains in the original return of income for the reason that the assessee was under the mistaken impression that the aforesaid land was an agricultural land and hence the capital gains on sale of such land was exempt from taxation. However, the assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee firstly, on the ground that the revised return had been filed by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(4) of the Act and further, it was only once notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 31-08-2015 was issued that the assessee filed revised return of income, declaring the sale of immovab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of information through AIR about this transaction. It is in these facts that the return got selected for scrutiny under the Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection and the notices u/s 143(2) was issued. In these facts and circumstances of the case in my considered opinion contention of assessee that the assessee filed revised return of income voluntarily before detection by the AO is not tenable. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the case laws cited by the assessee are distinguishable and are therefore not applicable to this case. In my considered opinion the decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of Snita transport (P) Ltd. vs ACIT (2014) 42 Taxmann.com 54 (Gujarat) is applicable in this case wherein the penalty u/s 271(l}(c) had been held justified on the disclosure by assessee after detection by department. In view of the above discussed facts and 'circumstances of the case and the binding decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court the impugned penalty is confirmed. The grounds of appeal is rejected. 7. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the assessee is to be treated as dismissed. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that the revised return of income, in which the assessee disclosed details of sale of immovable properties Rs. 54,20,000/- was not in pursuance to notice issued by the Department under section 143(2) of the Act, for the following reasons: firstly, on perusal of notices issued by the Department, it is seen that the query regarding the sale of immovable properties amounting to Rs. 54 .20 lakhs was enquired into for the first time by the Department vide notice dated 30-06-2016, whereas the assessee had already filed revised return of income on 31-10-2015. Secondly, in the notice dated 31-08-2015, there is no mention regarding sale of immovable properties by the assessee, and hence, it cannot be inferred that the assessee made a declaration regarding the sale of immovable properties pursuant to the aforesaid notice. Thirdly, the contention of the Department that the assessment proceedings had been initiated to enquire into the aspect of sale of aforesaid immovable properties by the assessee and therefore, the assessee was aware the reason as to why the assessment proceedings had been initiated is also not acceptable for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
