TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leared by 31.03.2013. We find that these facts are not disputed by AO - it is not in dispute that the assessee filed revised return before issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The assessee has also paid due tax along with interest thereon. In our view, the assessee has shown reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B and no penalty was leviable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Suraj Bhan. [ 2006 (4) TMI 107 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] by following the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Suresh Chand Mittal [ 2001 (6) TMI 63 - SC ORDER] held that when the assessee files a revised return showing higher income and gives explanation that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the work of construction. The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2013- 14 on 26.03.2014 declaring taxable income of ₹ 14,80,410/-. The assessee, subsequently revised his return of income by filing revised return on 18.06.2014 showing taxable income at ₹ 44,68,110/-. In the revise return of income the assessee disclosed long term capital gain of ₹ 29,87,700/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 21.12.2015. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 29,87,700/- due to mistake of Accountant. The Accountant committed mistake as the cheque of sale consideration was not encased in his account before 31.03.2013. The assessee on coming to know about the mistake filed revised return on 18.06.2014 showing correct sale consideration and paid balance tax with interest of ₹ 7,90,549/-. The assessee further stated that during assessment, the AO took his view that original return was filed late, it cannot be revised accordingly made addition. The assessee has paid due tax, thus it had no evasion of tax. The return was revised before issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The assessee further stated that case was selected for scrutiny in September 2014, however, the assessee has fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar lines. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR for assessee submits that assessee filed his return of income on 26.03.2014. The return of income was revised within three months and filed revised return on 18.06.2014. The revised return was filed before issuance of notice under section 143(3) of the Act. The AO though treated the original return as invalid being filed beyond the time period prescribed under section 139(4) of the Act and accordingly, not accepted the revised return. However, the ld. AO accepted the LT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal income, offered in the revised return. In the original return, the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars. Admittedly, there was difference of ₹ 29,87,700/- as far as return filed on 26.03.2014. The AO was justify in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities. We find that there is no dispute about the filing of original return of income on 26.03.2014 and subsequently the filing revised return of income on 18.06.2014. Admittedly, in the revised return, the assessee offered LTCG of ₹ 29,87,700/-. The AO though treated the revised return as invalid return. However, the AO while passing the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
