Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 798 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - taxability of income from sale of land - as per revenue income earned from sale of land is liable to be taxed and the assessee has not entitled for deduction under section 54B - Held that:- The assessee had a bona fide belief that M/s. Alpha Commercials, according to the mutual agreement, invested the money in residential property so as to facilitate the assessee to have a benefit under section 54F/54B of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer has not considered the explanation offered by the assessee as bona fide and he simply rejected the explanation by saying that the assessee has made a wrong claim in the original return of income and failed to disclose all material facts truly and wholly. According to the Assessing Officer, had it been there is no survey, the assessee's claim would have been gone unnoticed. However, it is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee's claim was false or bogus. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) examined the claim of the assessee that whether the assessee has given money to M/s. Alpha Commercials for the purpose of investment in residential property. The Assessing Officer observed that just because the assessee has remitted the demand raised by the Department, it cannot be a reason for levying the penalty. However, he has not found the claim of the assessee that the assessee has handed over the money to M/s. Alpha Commercial for investment in residential property. Further, when the assessee has given an explanation that he has given money to Alpha Commercials for the purpose of investment in residential house, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to examine the records of M/s. Alpha Commercials to find out whether, the claim of the assessee is genuine or not. The Assessing Officer without making investigation, cannot presume that the explanation given by the assessee is false or bogus. In the present case, the assessee submitted a detailed explanation before the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to establish that the assessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has accepted the amount offered by the assessee as his income and levied penalty without making any enquires and investigation to disprove that the explanation given by the assessee is either false or bona fide. Therefore, in our opinion, the penalty cannot be levied in the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee
|