TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early indicated in even claiming double cost of acquisition added back later. We take into account all these facts to quote hon ble apex court s landmark judgment in Price Water-house Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [ 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT ] that such inadvertence cannot be termed as an instance attracting the impugned penalty provision in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We repeat that the assessee s multifolded errors hereinabove inter alia in not having declared only two sale transactions instead of three, not adjusting cost of indexation on proportionate basis, not declaring interest income in 1000s of rupees and not being able to prove cost of improvement which were admitted latter on being pointed out jointly read lead us to a concl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 124 2125 at Bakrol dated 15th and 20th May, 2015 whereas the AIR information pointed out a third sale deed as well qua the very survey numbers on 16.10.2010. The assessee at this stage filed her letter dated 06.01.2014 giving details of her age, residential status in order to plead bonafide inadvertence in not declaring the third sale deed and consequential capital gains. The Assessing Officer proceeded further to once again notice that the assessee had in fact purchased total area measuring 12,874 sq.mtrs. vide two sale deeds in the year 1992 and sold 11,910 sq.mtrs. through the impugned sale deeds leaving behind small parcel admeasuring 838 sq.mtrs. whereas her long term capital gains computation claimed cost of acquisition twice and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The CIT(A) has confirmed the impugned penalty in lower appellate proceedings. 4. We have heard rival submissions. Case file perused. Both the parties reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer as upheld in lower appellate proceedings. We revert back to the relevant facts once again. We have sufficiently indicated that the assessee resides mostly in USA and her caretaker manages all of her domestic chorus including tax matters. It is evident that she had not declared the third transaction, proportionate cost of acquisition and interest income at the first instance. The fact however remains that the impugned sale deeds pertain to the very survey numbers. We observe in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
