Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 973 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment - warrant of authorization issued for the search was in joint names of various individuals but separate order of assessment was passed for the assessee in whose name alone there was no search warrant - Held that:- As one of the group members of the assessee, we do not find any merit in the contention of the assessee for holding that the order of assessment was invalid on the plea that warrant of authorization issued for the search was in joint names of various individuals but separate order of assessment was passed for the assessee. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - addition on account long term capital gains - Held that:- We found that on protective basis, the AO has also assessed the capital gain in the assessment year 2007-08, since the amount was added in the assessment year 2006-07, the AO imposed penalty for concealment of particulars in the assessment year 2006-07. It is clear from the record that assessee had declared arbitration award in the return filed in assessment year in assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08. Due to dispute regarding taxability of capital gain in assessment year 2006-07 & 2007-08, the AO has assessed the capital gain in assessment year 2006-07 and also on protective basis in the assessment year 2007-08 and AO also observed that the issue is debatable and the AO himself was not sure as to whether the capital gain is to be assessed in assessment year 2006-07 & 2007-08. In view of these facts, the CIT(A) recorded a finding to the effect that the assessee has not concealed the amount of capital gain which is declared in the AY 2007-08 in view of the fact that possession was received in financial year 2006-07 only. Since the AO has taken the view that transfer of assets was in the AY 2006-07, capital gains was also assessed in the AY 2006-07. Since there was no concealment of particulars in the return but the issue was debatable and two opinions were possible as admitted by the AO, the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the penalty insofar as issue was debatable as per the observation of the AO himself and since the possession was received in the financial year 2006-07, capital gain was offered in the assessment year 2007-08.
|