9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r short) was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) is the question raised in this appeal. 2. The assessment year involved herein is AY 1996-97. 3. In the present case, the assessee had filed return of income on 24th June 1996 declaring income of Rs.17,00,000/as long term capital gains arising on surrender of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x (Appeals) was upheld by the Tribunal. Thus, the amount of Rs.17,00,000/represented the undisclosed income of the assessee has attained finality. The undisclosed income has been assessed under the head 'income from other sources' and taxed at 30%. 5. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were initiated and the assessing officer imposed 200% penalty upon the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi), counsel for the assessee submitted that in the absence of any additions made in the assessment order, merely because the claim made by the assessee for assessment under one head is rejected by the assessing officer and the said income is assessed under some other head, then the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. 7. We find no merit in the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that the declaration made by the assessee regarding the source from which the income and Rs.17,00,000/has been earned has been found to be incorrect. Thus, the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts. 8. In this view of the matter, once the declaration made in the return of income itself is found to be incorrect, it would obviously amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
