2015 (4) TMI 977

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Income Tax (A) and deleting penalty levied when the CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the balance sheet of the assesee has shown borrowing/advances towards ancestral share in the property at Rs. 58,87,435/- and during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could produce the details only to the extent to Rs. 9,07,738/- and balance borrowing/advances amounting to Rs. 49,79,696/- could not be proved? B. Whether the Tribunal was right in endorsing the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) when the assessee disclosed before the Ld. CIT(A) that the income of Rs. 49,79,696/- was commission received is to be shared with the partners of real estate, but failed to disclose the same in the return of income? 3. The re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hus became liable for penalty. Consequently as the tax sought to be evaded was Rs. 16.73 lakhs, minimum penalty at 100% of the tax evaded i.e. Rs. 16.73 lakhs was imposed upon the respondent-Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the respondent-Assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In appeal, the respondent- Assessee explained that the amount of Rs. 49.79 lakhs was in fact attributable to the sale of the property for a sum of Rs. 1.50 crores resulting in getting Rs. 92.00 lakhs out of which Rs. 49.79 lakhs were to be shared with other people who had assisted in the sale of the property. This explanation offered by the respondent-Assessee was accepted by the Commissioner of Income Ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by order dated 26/09/2013. 9. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has formulated the proposed questions of law. However, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal by the impugned order have accepted the explanation offered by the respondent-Assessee. Consequently holding that inability to prove a liability would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for the purpose of imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the appellant-Revenue has proceeded on the basis that there was in fact a sale of property as is evident from the fact that the reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 22/03/2012 seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2007-08. Thi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X