9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Counsel for the appellant has raised the contention that though the AO found the certificate taken from the Panchayat was fraud and the penalty was imposed but no such contention has been raised or any ground was taken before the Tribunal. We have gone through the judgment of the Tribunal. In para 2.1 & 2.4 the Tribunal observed as under: "2.1 The facts of the issue as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- 3.1.3 I have duly considered assessee's submission and carefully gone through penalty order passed by the AO. I have also perused the facts of the case. On perusal, following points emerge:- (i) The AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)((c) in respect of disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ROI (refer pg 23-24 of the penalty order). Assessee is allowed under the law to revise her ROI within the stipulated time frame u/s 139(5) of the Act. The dictionary meaning of OMISSION is ''the act of not including or not doing''. Further, the dictionary meaning of MISTAKE is ''an action or an opinion that is not correct''. Therefore, the action of withdrawal of 80IB claim comes within the purview of mistake. AO has summarily rejected the explanation of the assessee with regard to the revised return filed. (ii) AO has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. It is a fact that claims made by the assessee were based on experts advice and backed by certification issued i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove assessee's explanation as false or untrue. In view of facts and circumstance of the case as mentioned above, levy of penalty of Rs. 1,47,78,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained, hence deleted.'' 2.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. A search was conducted on 22-09-2010 in the case of Shree Ram Group, Jaipur to which the assessee belongs. The assessee is an individual and she derives income from real estate business, and capital gain. The assessee purchased agricultural land and got it converted into residential and commercial plot after getting the same approved from JDA (i.e. Jaipur Development Authority). The assessee filed return of income declaring total income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (ii) The assessee revised the return only on 26.03.2013 after knowing the view of the department in respect of wrong claim of deduction u/s 80IB. (iii) The revised return is not valid as there was no discovery of any omission or wrong statement in the original return of income. (iv) the immediate source of profit is from sale of land and not from development of project. (v) findings have been noticed by the A.O. at the time of assessment, hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed and there is no overlapping with section 271AAA. (vi) Penalty is imposed for intentionally filling inaccurate particulars of income. The AO thus passed an order under section 271(1) (c) of I.T. Act, 1961 imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,47,78,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
