TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ightly been rejected by the authorities below as it is clearly after the AO s confrontation with the assessee with the correct position, that the assessee offered the same. Hence, we uphold the order of Revenue authorities. - ITA No.3458/Del./2019 - - - Dated:- 17-6-2022 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Tufail Tahir, Senior DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16 wherein penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) for an amount of Rs.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited the income tax on the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.2,41,05,864.00 suo moto and he had submitted the revised computation of total income with the challan deposited of income tax of Rs.71,90,140.00 in Punjab National Bank through BSR code 0301497 challan no.00001 dated 28.09.2017. 3. The assessee had deposited this tax of Rs.71,90,140.00 suo moto to buy peace and to avoid the litigation and with the condition that no penalty will be imposed. 3. AO made addition of Rs.2,61,23,549/-. On this addition, penalty notice was issued. The AO found that above conduct of the assessee was liable to be visited through rigorous of penalty. AO held that when assessee was completely cornered by the AO he had no option to offer the said LT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he claim of depreciation u/s 54B and 54F. Ld. CIT (A) also agreed that the surrender of balance amount was not voluntary. Ld. CIT (A) proceeded to refer several case laws and confirmed the penalty. 5. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We note that the penalty has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being the incorrect claim of deduction by the assessee on LTCG. Assessee s plea before the ld. CIT(A) that the same was on account of wrong advice by the counsel has been rejected by the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) made such observation that even after AO s pointing out that correct amount of claim as per documents be su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
