TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In the reassessment order, the Income-tax Officer brought to tax long-term capital gains in relation to the compensation (including solatium) received, in the land acquisition proceedings, which admittedly the assessee had not disclosed in his return of income for the year under consideration. However, it is pertinent to note that the amount received by the assessee had been returned by the assessee in his return of income for the assessment year 1975-76. In fact, the Income-tax Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on this disclosure made by the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot, initiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had failed to disclose the fact of the property being notified for the purposes of acquisition and thus becoming entitled to compensation. The assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal relying upon the decisions in the cases of CIT v. Narpat Singh Malkhan Singh [1981] 128 ITR 77 (MP); Addl. CIT v. J.K.D'Costa [1982] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi) and CIT v. Keshrimal Parasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484 (Raj), came to the conclusion that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in exercising his revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that against the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of J.K.D'Costa [1982] 133 ITR 7, the S.L.P. filed by the department had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 271(1)(c) could be levied for the said assessment year. In view of this fact situation, we feel that it is not necessary to enter into the larger controversy regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income tax, namely, whether the Commissioner of Income-tax could act under section 263 of the Act, to direct the Income-tax Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the facts stated hereinbefore, we hold that as no penalty was leviable on the assessee, the Commissioner of Income tax could. not have assumed jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal's ultimate conclusion that the Commissioner of Income-tax' order under section 263 of the Act, could be set aside is right in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
