TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sale consideration is not Rs. 8,16,550 as disclosed in the deed of sale but is a sum of Rs. 16,43,539 as estimated by the Assessing Officer ? 3. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the extra consideration alleged to have been received by the managing director, should also be attributed to the applicant company ? 4. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the extra consideration alleged to have been received by the managing director of the applicant company is also applicable for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ? 5. Whether the Tribunal is right in ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee was guilty of concealment of particulars of income. He, therefore, levied minimum penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 6,12,135 after getting approval of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Range-I, Madras. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order levying the penalty to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the issue relating to the levy of penalty was fully examined and the charge of penalty was proved. As regards the contention that the assessee had not received the money, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that there is no proof to show that the managing director pocketed the proceeds of the transaction and the said P. Govindasami acted in the capacity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roach of the Appellate Tribunal was erroneous in sustaining the penalty. According to learned senior counsel, the Appellate Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the penalty is automatic and once addition was upheld in the quantum appeal, the penalty should follow. According to learned senior counsel, whatever might be the case with reference to the addition as regards capital gain in so far as the penalty is concerned there must be some independent evidence to show that the assessee has actually received the money and there was concealment of income in the return filed by the assessee. Hence, according to learned senior counsel, since the Department has not established the concealment on the part of the assessee, the penalty on the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also found that it was not able to accept the contention of the assessee that it did not receive any additional consideration. The Appellate Tribunal found that the managing director executed the sale deed on behalf of the assessee and received the additional consideration on behalf of the assessee and the assessee-company had the knowledge of the additional consideration. In spite of its specific knowledge, the assessee had not disclosed the true consideration for sale in the return of income filed by the assessee when declaring the capital gains. The Appellate Tribunal, therefore, upheld the levy of penalty. The findings of the Appellate Tribunal that there was additional consideration over and above the amount disclosed in the document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
