New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 148 - ITAT MUMBAI

2016 (5) TMI 148 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additions made on account of Long Term Capital Gain - Assessing Officer has held that the assessee has failed to established the genuineness of the cost of acquisition adopted by him and claimed of unexplained transfer fees and thereby suppress the Long Term Capital - Held that:- The assessee filed the return for the A.Y. 1994-95 on 24.07.1995 declaring total income of ₹ 1,50,200/-. When the survey action u/s. 133A of the Act w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee offered the capital gain to the tune of ₹ 77,55,636/- on account of sale proceed received by him at ₹ 19,37,250/- in respect of residential flat. It is correct that if the case of assessee is based upon only on the facts that the demand of the valuation report can be treated levy the penalty. But in this case the facts are otherwise. It is clear case of concealment of particulars of his income received on account of above mentioned flat and furnishing inaccurate particulars b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

No.7291/M/13 - Dated:- 23-3-2016 - SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM For The Assessee : Shri Apurva R. Shah For The Department : Shri. Sumit Kumar ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: This is an appeal against the order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the learned CIT(A) ] relevant to the assessment year 1994-95. 2. The appellant has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. In confirming the levy of penalty 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

in the matter. 5. In confirming a penalty which was calculated at a tax rate including surcharge and cess. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y.1994-95 on 24.07.1995 declaring the total income of ₹ 1,50,200/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act ) for a reason that during the F.Y. relevant to A.Y. 1994-95, the assessee had received a sum of ₹ 1.36 crores on sale of flat for which the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

01 assessing the total income of ₹ 93,70,139/- after making certain additions / disallowances. The main additions were made on account of Long Term Capital Gain and disallowance of Short Term Capital Loss. The assessee offered the tax on the capital gain of ₹ 77,55,636/- in the return of income filed on 09.03.2001. At the time of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had opted the cost of acquisition of the said flat as on 01.04.1981 of ₹ 19,37,250/- in view .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

97,140/- as against Capital gain offered by the assessee amounting to ₹ 77,55,636/-. Subsequently, the Hon ble ITAT has restored the issue to the Learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has confirmed the said addition made by the Assessing Officer which was again upheld by the Hon ble ITAT. Thereafter the action u/s. 271(1)(c) was initiated and notice dated 15.02.2011 was served upon the assessee, who also replied the same by virtue of letter dated 03.03.2011. The Assessing Officer has held tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds. The learned representative of the assessee has argued that the addition in question has been made by the Assessing Officer by taking the different fair market value of the flat as on 01.04.1981 and the same cannot be the base to levy the penalty, therefore, in the said circumstances the penalty order is liable to be set aside in accordance with law. On the other hand the learned representative of the Department has refuted the said contentions. Keeping in view of the argument advanced by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

time of survey business premises were shut down. The statement of assessee was recorded and in view the statement of assessee, it came into notice that the assessee received a sum of ₹ 1.36 crores on account of sale of flat which had not been offered for taxation. Beside this the assessee was having accounts in three banks and copies of banks accounts revealed total credit of ₹ 2.13 crores. Thereafter the assessee filed the return of income for A.Y. 1994-95 declaring taxable income .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e assessee opted cost of acquisition of flat as on 04.04.1981 at ₹ 19,37,250/- vide its letter dated 13.03.2001. On enquiry it was found that in the same building flat no. 402 was sold in November, 1981 for the sale consideration of ₹ 6,50,000/- i.e. at the rate of ₹ 588 per sq. ft. Therefore in the said circumstances the valuation report of the assessee became doubtful. Thereafter, the assessment was done estimating the cost of the flat to the tune of ₹ 9,84,000/- agains .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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