9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer (AO) under S. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2011-12. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee in the instant case, filed its return of income for AY 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs. 643190/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny through CASS. In the course of scrutiny assessment, it was observed by the AO as per the AIR information of ITD Module that the assessee has sold immovable property on 18.01.2011 and the gain therefrom was not recorded. On inquiry, in the course of the assessment, the assessee submitted the working of long term capital gain in respect of aforesaid property transaction, which was not shown in the return of income. As per the working given by the assessee, the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only ground of appeal is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 20,77,581/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As per the findings given in the assessment order, the appellant filed return of income on 28-09-2011 showing total income of Rs. 6,43,190/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of Act, Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 31-07-2012. A questionnaire alongwith notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the appellant on 17-06-2013. The AO stated that as per AIR information, the appellant sold immovable property on 18-01-2011, but no capital gain was shown in the return of income filed. Vide notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the case of the appellant was fixed for hearing on 01-07-2013. On the date of hearing, the appellant submitted vide submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the appellant did not show this transaction in the return filed originally and revised return was also not filed. The appellant submitted calculation of capital gam on the day of first hearing. In the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, there was no specific question asked by the AO about this transaction. Q. No. 8 & 9 of the questionnaire relevant to this issue are reproduced hereunder: "8. Please specify whether any transactions in respect of movable and immovable property is made during the year relevant to assessment year 2031-12, if yes, please furnish copy of conveyance deed/registered documents. Also furnished register document evidencing purchase/ ownership of the sold property and the sources of investment. 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rily disclosed additional income during the course of assessment proceedings and paid tax thereon. Even though the revised return was found to be invalid, the Assessing Officer accepted the income as declared in the revised return and computation. The Assessing Officer did not bring any material on record that the declaration of income made by the assessee in his revised return or his Explanation was not bonafide. In these circumstances there appeared no basis for imposition of penalty on the ground that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. "Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the penalty." It is well settled that the parameters of judging the justification for addition made in the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be treated as voluntary disclosure and therefore, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was justified whereas, as per the AR of the assessee. since the additional income was disclosed prior to detection by the department, the same was a voluntary disclosure and therefore, the CIT[A] was justified hi deleting penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act 11. It is observed that the investigation in the instant case was commenced by the A.O. only on 24-8-2007 by issue of 142[1] "Notice. No material was brought before us to show: that there was any material available with the department prior to 31-3-2007 to show that there was some additional income then the income disclosed in the original return assessable in the hands of the assessee. In the circumstances, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of the revenue is dismissed. As the facts of the appellant's case are identical to the facts of the cases decided by the Hon'ble jurisdictional 1TAT, Ahmadabad. The penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not found justified. Therefore, it deserves to be deleted, therefore, it is deleted. In para-4.3 of the assessment order, the AO stated as under: "4.3 If the case was not selected for scrutiny, there would have been loss of revenue. Considering details filed along with supporting evidence in respect of cost and other expenses incurred, total Long term capital gain of Rs. 1,03,87,907/- is worked out and added to the total income of the assesses. Penalty u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 is being initiated separately for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
