Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1812 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non specification of charge - vague notice and vague findings giving in the penalty order - claiming wrong exemption u/s 54 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, we find that the notice initiating the penalty proceedings is uncertain where the AO uses the expression “concealment particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. During the penalty proceedings, he has given a decisive and clear finding as reflected in the penalty order that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate of particulars of income' as the assessee, in its original computation has deliberately avoided disclosing true particulars and furnished inaccurate particulars by claiming wrong exemption u/s 54 which was as such not available to the assessee. Therefore, following the legal proposition as discussed above, we are unable to accede to the aforesaid contention of the ld AR. Regarding the contentions of the ld AR on merits, we have gone through the computation of income so filed by the assessee along with the original return of income wherein the assessee has shown long term capital gains of ₹ 9,01,537 and has claimed exemption under section 54. The computation so filed is silent on the nature and specifics of the property so purchased by the assessee. There is thus clearly lack of disclosure as far as nature of property so purchased by the assessee. On examination thereof, the AO has found that the assessee has sold an immoveable property in form of a shop and has purchased another shop and which is not eligible for exemption under section 54 of the Act. It is thus not a case where there is adequate disclosure of nature of property in the return of income and it is only the legal claim so made by the assessee u/s 54 on appreciation of such facts which has been denied by the AO. Therefore, it is clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and we see no infirmity in the findings of the AO in this regard. Regarding the contention of the ld AR that the assessee has suomoto revised the computation of income and even paid the taxes during the course of assessment proceedings, we are unable to accede to the said contentions of the ld AR - Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
|