9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated 16.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is in respect of levy of penalty of Rs. 3,48,373/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Co-Operative Housing Society formed on 08.05.2000. An application for obtaining PAN was made and a PAN was allotted bearing no. AAEFB0105H (hereinafter referred to as 'old PAN'). The said PAN was incorrectly allotted with the status as 'Firm". Subsequently, assessee applied for a fresh PAN under the status 'AOP'. The new PAN was allotted bearing no. "AABAB2518A' (hereinafter referred to as 'new PAN') under the status 'AOP' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reporting total income at Rs. 10,08,774/-. When the notice was received u/s. 148, the reasons recorded were not supplied alongwith it, therefore the assessee presumed that the re-assessment would be because the loss was adjusted against the rental income and interest income. Under that pretext, return was filed reporting rental income as per Form 26AS and not reducing the loss of Rs. 9,79,909/-. Form 26AS was under the new PAN and hence the rental income of only Vodafone India Limited of Rs. 4,50,000 and Bharti Infratel Venture Limited of Rs. 4,50,000/-was reflected. Later, reasons recorded were provided and that is when assessee realised that re-assessment was for the rental income from Loop Mobile, TDS on which was deducted under the old ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ording to the assessee, levy of penalty is not an automatic consequence of an addition being made to the income of the tax payer. In the case of the assessee, the income which were alleged to be escaping assessment were taken into account in the return filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the same is accepted by the ld. Assessing Officer by making assessment at the returned income. Accordingly, there is no occasion of concealment of particulars of income on the part of the assessee. 4.1. Assessee submitted that the reasons of reopening is on account of old PAN which was allotted to the assessee bearing the code status as "Firm" though the status of the assessee is "AOP". Assessee had duly applied for cancella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of CIT(A) vs. Hiralal Doshi [2017] 79 taxmann.com 371 (Bom). In this case, assessee disclosed long term capital gain on sale of shares and claimed exemption of same under section 10(38). However, following survey proceedings, the assessee filed revised return disclosing gain on sale of shares as business income. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal deleted the penalty. Hon'ble Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) reached a prima facie conclusion that the income could be regarded as long-term capital gain. Once the aforesaid conclusion has been reached coupled with two further facts, viz the authorities have rendered a finding of fact that the respondent-assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that it had inadvertently claimed loss on account of mutuality, which was set off against the rental and interest income, the same was corrected while filing the return in response to the notice u/s. 148. Assessee also included interest relating to time deposit in its return filed in response to the notice u/s. 148. It is also undisputed fact that the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was completed by ld. Assessing Officer, accepting the returned income, there being no addition or disallowance. However, penalty proceedings were initiated on the income components, which were reported by the assessee in the return filed in response to notice u/s. 148, vis-à-vis which were not included in the original return, u/s. 139. 6.2. In the gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
