TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 1,69,948/-. 4. The AO in the assessment proceedings initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, on account of furnishing inaccurate particular of income and thereby concealment of income by issuing notice under section 274 of the Act, vide notice dated 21st July 2016. 5. The assessee in response to such notice submitted that the liability for the capital gain arose on account of the valuation of the land transferred to the firm which was duly recorded in the books of accounts. As such, the assessee never tried to hide the facts about the income under the head capital gain deliberately. 6. The assessee also claimed that he has paid the taxes of Rs. 2,69,732/- dated 31st December 2015 by filing the revised computation of income. 7. However, the AO was dissatisfied with the contention of the assessee and held that income under the head capital gain was offered to tax only after selection of this case under scrutiny and issuance of notice under section 142(1) of the Act. 8. Similarly, the AO also held that there was no explanation furnished by the assessee about the excess interest expenses claimed for Rs. 1,69,948/-. 9. In view of the above the AO levied the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act. Accordingly the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 16. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly the notice under section 143(2) was issued dated 20 September 2015 and notice under section 142(1) was issued upon the assessee dated 27th of May 2016. However the assessee has filed the revised computation of income and paid the taxes of Rs. 2,69,732/- vide challan dated 31st December 2015. Thus what is transpired is this that the assessee has disclosed the income before the detection of the same by the AO in the assessment proceedings. 17. Now the first controversy before us arises so as to adjudicate whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by not disclosing the income under the head capital gain and by claiming the excess interest expenses. The term inaccurate particular of income has not been defined under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act the Act. However, the meaning of the term inaccurate has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd reported in 189 taxman 322 where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Revenue to prove that such deemed income is the real income of the assessee in order to attract the penalty provisions specified under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In holding so we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Baroda Tin works Box reported in 221 ITR 661 wherein it was held as under: Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C are all part of the same scheme where certain amounts though not proved to be the income of the assessee of the previous year concerned are for the purpose of charging to tax are deemed to be so by creating legal fiction absolving the department from its initial duty to prove that any such is the income of the assessee. But for these provisions, it was for the revenue to prove that any sum, not disclosed by the assessee but which is sought to be taxed as income of the assessee, is the income of the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year. 20. In view of the above, we hold that the assessee has not deliberately undisclosed the income under the head capital gain and claimed excessive interest expenses. As such the assessee himself suo-moto revised the computation and paid the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated 6.5.2020 read with order dated 23.3.2020, extended the limitation to exclude not only this lockdown period but also a few more days prior to, and after, the lockdown by observing that "In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown". Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in an order dated 15th April 2020, has, besides extending the validity of all interim orders, has also observed that, "It is also clarified that while calculating time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly", and also observed that "arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020". It has been an unprecedented situation not only in India but all over the world. Government of India has, vide notification dated 19th February 2020, taken the stand that, the coronavi....