9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck of culpability is required to be established. As assessee had claimed a small amount of long-term capital gains and under the circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the assessee might be a bona fide beneficiary of the long-term capital gains. Though the additions have been made/confirmed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities in this case, however, to establish the allegation of concealment of income/ furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to invoke penal provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, stricter proof is required, which, in our view, is missing in this case. Hence, giving the benefit of doubte assessee should not be burdened with penal consequences of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And Ors' reported in 2022 SCC Online Calcutta 1572 confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer observing that in the light of the report of the investigation wing, there were preponderance of probabilities of the long-term capital gains being claimed as bogus. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the impugned penalty of Rs.4, 61, 771/-. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty levied by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, thus, has come in appeal before us. 5. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in this case, the assessee, during the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard the rival contentions and gone through the record. The additions were made by the Assessing Officer and further confirmed by the CIT(A), however, the same were deleted by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 07.08.2019 passed in ITA No.2180/Kol/2018 observing that it was not proved by the department that the alleged transactions entered into by the assessee, were bogus. However, the Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the addition relying upon the report of the investigation wing and on account of preponderance of probabilities along with the lead case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj And Ors' (supra). It has been held time and again that matters relating to the assessment and penalty are different proceedings. So far as the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
