Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1233 - ITAT CHENNAIPenalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - assessee had filed his revised return of income voluntarily declaring the capital gain accrued to him from the sale of agricultural land measuring about 1 acre at Kalapatty village - Reopening of assessment - Held that:- One cannot simply presume, the assessee had filed the revised return only after he came to know about the survey proceedings in the premises of the Shri Chinnasamy Selvaraj. There is no categorical finding on this aspect also by the AO, which CIT (A) had clearly observed in his order. The concept of presumption or an after-thought by the assessee cannot be plainly inferred only by considering the chronological events of the fact without looking at the root of the basic facts. There is also no finding by the Ld. Assessing Officer on the fact that the relevant asset was located within 8 Kilometers radius from the municipal limit of Coimbatore town, which the assessee had himself voluntarily admitted. It is worthwhile to mention here that under normal circumstances one does not always realize the location of his assets with respect to its distance from the municipal limit of a particular city. In the present case the asset is located beyond the municipal limit of Coimbatore city; though within 8 Kilometers from the radius of such prescribed limit. Therefore, there is a possibility of bona fide misconception by the assessee on the issue. However, when the assessee realized his folly, he earnestly computed his tax liability under the head capital gain and voluntarily filed the revised return of income promptly along with proof of payment of tax. AO after obtaining the relevant information from the revised return, treated the return of income as lodged, however acted upon the return filed by the assessee by accepting the income declared in the revised return subsequent to issuance of notice U/s. 148 and on receipt of the reply from the assessee to treat the revised return as return filed in response to notice U/s 148 and further proceeded to levy penalty. But this is not a case suitable for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) because, the entire addition has resulted from the voluntary disclosure by the assessee, though omitted to be disclosed while filing the original return of income due to bonafide reasons. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
|