9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts as culled out from the records are that assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act was framed in the case of assessee on 29.12.2011 assessing income at Rs. 2,52,000/- and agriculture income at Rs. 85,000/-. Subsequently the Learned Assessing Officer (in short Ld.A.O) on the basis of information received regarding sale of land on 28.9.2008 wherein stamp valuation authority adopted stamp valuation at Rs. 2,90,80,000/- as against sale consideration shown at Rs. 1,83,20,000/- , reopened the assessee's case and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Due to non compliance on the part of the asseesee as the notices were not sent to the proper address, there were no submission on record given by the assessee and the Ld.A.O accordingly framed ex-parte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el, Narayan Mali (assessee) and Dayaram Mali. The alleged transactions of sale of agriculture land and long term capital gain was shown in the return of income filed by the assessee on 31/12/2011 in the status of HUF. It was contended by the counsel for the assessee before the lower authorities that the sale transaction and long term capital gain were shown in the return of income of HUF on the advice of Tax consultant. However, all necessary details including the claim of deduction/rebate u/s 54B as well as 54F in respect of purchase of new agriculture land and residential house were shown in the return of income filed by the assessee's HUF. 6. Now the issue before us is whether the Ld.A.O was justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim of exemption u/s 54B/54F which was shown in the hands of HUF. Thus a claim was made by the appellant and a view had been adopted based on consultation that the property belonged to the HUF. The AO was however not in agreement with such claim. No doubt return of income showing LTCG in the hands of the appellant individual was not filed however all relevant facts were already on record by way of the return in the case of the HUF. The claim even if disallowed that the property belonged to HUF has been negated on a difference of opinion and therefore the claim warranted to be seen on merits. The disallowance was thus merely a rejection of a claim on account of difference of opinion which does not attract the rigours of penalty u/s 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the considered view that the assessee has filed all the details of the alleged transaction of sale of agriculture land as well as various rebates and exemptions claimed which have been shown in the income tax return filed by the assessee in the capacity of his HUF. It cannot be presumed that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income because the assessee has shown transaction of sale of agriculture land in the hands of assessee's HUF as the property in question was ancestral. We, therefore find no reason to interfere in the findings of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied at Rs. 19,38,700/- by the Ld. A.O. 8. We accordingly dismiss the appeal of revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
