TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 26.11.2009 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) arising from the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the Assessment Year 2001-02. 2 The assessee filed his return of income showing income from house property, business income, capital gains and income from other source. While calculating the long term capital loss, the assessee has shown date of purchase of flats ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R of the assessee has submitted that the date of purchase as mentioned by the assessee being Nov 1982 is due to bonafide mistake and not with the intention to take any advantage of misrepresenting or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He has further submitted that the correct date of purchase was available with the Assessing Officer as the assessee filed the copy of the agreement of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 158(SC). 3.1 The ld DR, on the other hand has vehemently contended that the assessee has given wrong date of indexation of the property and thereby offered minus income as capital gain. He has further submitted that the intention is not relevant for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut from the fact of furnishing of the details and documents showing the correct date of purchase, then mere mentioning of wrong date of purchase would not lead to the conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 4.1 It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer noticed this discrepancy of the date of purchase from the purchase agreem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
