Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Usharani Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax

2016 (1) TMI 365 - ITAT CHENNAI

Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - undisclosed long term capital gains and expenditure - Held that:- In this case, consequent to search /survey action in the case of M/s. Rajarathinam Constructions P. Ltd, the documents relating to the purchase of property by assessee was found and it came to know that M/s. Rajarathinam Constructions P. Ltd purchased land located at Perumbakkam village for ₹ 6,75,000/- from assessee. However, the assessee had not admitted long term capital gains in respect of sale of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in its entirety. Admittedly, the assessee was not able to substantiate the claim made by her. However, the Assessing Officer while computing the penalty considered entire disallowance of ₹ 8,15,000/- though at this stage addition was sustained was only ₹ 2,15,000/-. To that extent the assessee shall get relief. In other words, in view of the failure on the part of the assessee to substantiate the expenditure of ₹ 2,15,000/- towards dealers commis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Appellant : Shri M Rosiah, CA For the Respondent : Dr U Anjaneyulu, IRS, CIT ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, dated 27.11.2014 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is with regard to confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act at ₹ 1,98,420/- 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed her r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of this transaction are as under: Sl.No Name of Seller Extent of land Consideration Rs Nature of document Date 01 Smt. Usharani 3.5 cents cents 6,75,000/- Sale deed 01.03.2007 In this background, this case was notified to Central Circle III(2) vide notification No.13/2008-09 dated 23.12.2008 in C.No.6121/Centrn/2008-9/VI, as a result of which a notice u/s 148 was issued on 14.12.2009. subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on 23.12.2009. These notices were complied with as the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

disallowance which is on lower side would not entail Tribunal to interfere in the ld. CIT(A) s order, hence, this issue is decided against the assessee. Meanwhile the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act vide order dated 24.02.2012 on the reason that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and made wrong claim towards marketing expenses and dealers commission and failed to produce any evidence towards the same. Against this, the assessee preferred an ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the aforesaid additions to the income of the assessee, is apparent from the penalty order under appeal, what upheld both by the then Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. From the facts on records, it is apparent that the assessee had made a wrong claim of the aforesaid expenditure which could not be proven to have been incurred. The aforesaid wrong claim of expenditure resulted in furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income of the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. In this case, consequent to search /survey action in the case of M/s. Rajarathinam Constructions P. Ltd, the documents relating to the purchase of property by assessee was found and it came to know that M/s. Rajarathinam Constructions P. Ltd purchased land located at Perumbakkam village for ₹ 6,75,000/- from assessee. However, the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version