TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions cannot be vague in their invocation which is beyond the scope of Income Tax Statute. Besides that, the principles of natural justice were not at all followed by the Revenue in assessee's case. On merit also land in question does not fall within the ambit of capital asset , as defined u/s. 2(14) and therefore, capital gain arising on sale of such lands is exempt, this submission of the Ld. AR is correct and as per law. Therefore, the penalty does not sustain. Incorrect provisions of the penalty - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view of the provisions of Section 271AAA as the search took place on 21.09.2010, the reliance of the Ld. AR on the decision of the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 271(1)(c) of the Act. The levy of penalty being without jurisdiction and totally uncalled for deserves to be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to the above the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Ld. AO of levying penalty on income which has already been disclosed by the appellant in his return of income filed u/s. 153A of the Act. 3. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the facts that the Ld. AO has made additions to the tune of ₹ 16,05,010/- to the total income of the appellant while framing the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A(1)(b) of the Act whereas penalty under section 271(c) of the Act has been wrongly levied on an amount of ₹ 17,95,013/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness of estate agent/broker. The search was carried out on 21.09.2010 and statement was recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee disclosed profit on sale of land and commission income as per the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. The assessee disclosed exempted profit on sale of land and commission in the revised computation of income filed before the Assessing Officer. The assessee disclosed ₹ 1,33,540/- being profit on sale of agricultural land which is covered as per Section 2(14) of the Act and also exempted. The same was shown in revised computation of income and the assessee paid the taxes thereon. The assessee fulfilled all the conditions laid down in Section 2(14) of the Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00% of tax sought to be evaded. On merit, the Ld. AR submitted that land in question does not fall within the ambit of capital asset , as defined u/s. 2(14) and therefore, capital gain arising on sale of such lands is exempt. For A.Y. 2010-11, the Ld. AR submitted that the details related to foreign travel expenses were totally explained by the assessee during the proceedings before the CIT(A). For A.Y. 2011-12, the Ld. AR submitted that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year and the provisions of Section 271AAA of the Act will be applicable. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs. ACIT (2015) 155 ITD 1003. Thus, the Ld. AR submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gards ITA No. 800/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2010-11, in this assessment year also no particular limb was mentioned by the Revenue authorities in the penalty notice. Besides that the principles of natural justice of giving proper hearing to the assessee were also not followed while imposing the penalty and the Assessing Officer/Revenue Authorities were not justified in invoking the proper penalty provisions, the assessee cannot be held responsible for the fault of Revenue. In fact, no cogent reasoning was given by the Revenue for imposing the penalty. On merit the details related to foreign travel expenses were totally explained by the assessee during the proceedings before the CIT(A) which was totally ignored by the Revenue. The said exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
