TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sset. The written down value too was referred but the error crept in treating the transaction as long term capital gain. The assessee committed the error in present set of facts and that cannot be treated as concealment of particulars of its income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The error could have been rectified by the Assessing Officer by making necessary additions and for that the assessee is under obligation to pay tax but penalty could have not been imposed as per Section 271(a)(c) of the Act without satisfying concealment or submission of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee. Such satisfaction must reflect in the order of assessment as the penalty as per the provision under consideration is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same being depreciable asset. As already stated, the sale consideration for the Dal Mill was ₹ 19,14,000/- and the return down value of that as on 1.4.1994 was ₹ 9,57,482/-. The assessee, as such, gained ₹ 9,56,518/- but that was not declared in return of income filed. An action under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thus, was initiated and the Asessing Officer made certain additions. The additions so made came to be affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and also by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. A notice as per Section 274 read with Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act of 1961 was issued and the assessee in response thereto stated that it being a Co-operative Society is under the control ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Tribunal also came to be dismissed by the order dated 14.9.2012 with a finding that the Dal Mill sold was a part of block of assets and the assessee claimed depreciation thereon from beginning till the year 1987 and the fact that the assessee is a Co-operative Society is not sufficient to absolve it from penal provisions as per Section 271 (a)(c) of the Act of 1961. The assessee after disposal of the appeal preferred an application seeking certain modifications in the order passed by the Tribunal and the application aforesaid came to be dismissed on 30.4.2013, however, by another order dated 31.7.2013, the penalty of 150% was substituted by 100%. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14.9.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticulars of such income, shall be liable to pay penalty. The prime factors required to be considered while imposing penalty as per Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 are concealment of particulars of income or submission of inaccurate particulars of such income. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the assessee disclosed all details about its income including the fact about sale of Dal Mill with a consideration of ₹ 19,14,000/- A depreciation was claimed by it by treating the same as a depreciable asset. The written down value too was referred but the error crept in treating the transaction as long term capital gain. The assessee committed the error in present set of facts and that cannot be treated as concealment of parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
