9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d interest income - It is culled out from assessment-order that the assessee received sale-proceeds of immovable properties through cheques in his bank account (Para 2.5 of assessment-order) and the impugned interest income is also from bank accounts. Therefore, it can be discerned that when the AO, vide order-sheet entry dated 12.09.2012, questioned the assessee to explain the transactions of sale of immovable properties, the assessee had to declare not only capital gain but also interest from banks in the revised return. Therefore, the plea of AR that the declaration of interest income was voluntary is not acceptable and the same is rejected. Consequently, the imposition of penalty qua the interest income is hereby upheld. - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee: Shri Anil Khabya, AR For the Revenue: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 10.01.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [ CIT(A) ] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 29.03.2016 passed by learned ITO-2(4), Bhopal [ AO ] u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [ the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ital gain and (ii) Rs. 1,06,772/- on account of interest income, surviving even after ITAT s order, should also be deleted on merit. 6. So far as the first part of assessee s grievance is concerned, we agree that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable qua the relief already granted by ITAT in quantum-proceeding because the very basis of imposition of penalty has collapsed to that extent. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete penalty to that extent. This deletion is, however, subject to the rider that if the revenue is in further appeal before High Court against the quantum deleted by ITAT and the ITAT s order is reversed, the revenue shall have power to revive the penalty in accordance with law. 7. Coming to second part of assessee s grievance, learned representative of both sides made their respective contentions against and in support of penalty. We present below our anlaysis and adjudication: 7.1 Penalty qua the long-term capital gain of Rs. 6,26,256/-: (i) Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the impugned capital gain was derived by assessee from sale of agricultural land but the resultant capital gain was not declared in the original return of assessee by assessee s coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spectively. The assessee has neither disclosed sale of immovable properties nor offered any income under the head Short/Long Term Capital Gain. Vide order sheet entry dated 12.09.2012, the assessee was asked to furnish details of sale of immovable properties during the period under consideration. He was further asked to furnish working of Short/Long Term Capital Gain in respect of such transactions along with copies of registered sale deeds and purchase deeds. Referring to same, Ld. AR submitted that the notings made by AO clearly show that (i) the department received information of sale transactions of immovable properties made by assessee from AIR database and (ii) it is only when the AO questioned assessee vide order-sheet entry dated 12.09.2012 to furnish the details of those sale transactions and to furnish the working of capital gain that the assessee came out with filing of revised return on 07.11.2012 and offer resultant capital gain to department. Therefore, the assessee has not made any voluntary disclosure, in fact the assessee concealed taxable gain in original return. Ld. DR further relied upon certain decisions to contend that the Hon ble Courts have upheld imposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. NG Technologies Ltd. (supra) as approved by Hon ble Supreme Court by rejecting asessee s SLP. In fact, the assessee s case is more worse for the reason that the revised return filed by assessee was also not a valid return. Therefore, in the light of this decision, the penalty imposed by AO qua the capital gain deserves to be upheld. Other pleading made by Ld. AR are not legal and do not impress us. However, we find that out of the addition of Rs. 6,26,256/-, one part of Rs. 2,40,998/- is attributable to the estimation difference of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 for which the ITAT has also observed in their quantum-order thus: 30 ...In the given facts and circumstances of the case and being fair to both the parties, we are of the view that cost of acquisition for 1.647 acres should be adopted Therefore, the addition of Rs. 2,40,998/- is a result of a fair view taken by ITAT in the matter of estimation and hence to that extent, it should not be considered as concealment. Being so, we hereby come to the conclusion that penalty is sustainable for first component of Rs. 3,85,258/- but not for other component of Rs. 2,40,998/-. We hold accordingly. 7.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
