TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... infirmity in the order of CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. We further note that DR has not been able to point out any defect in the factual observations made by CIT(A) while allowing the appeal of the assessee. From the facts placed on record, in our considered view, it is a case where apparently a bonafide mistake was made by the assessee owing to lack of documents at the time of filing of return of income. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and the appeal of the Department is hereby dismissed. - ITA No. 2038/Ahd/2018 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2023 - Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Manish J. Shah And Shri Rushin Patel, A.Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of several properties sold by the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessee submitted that the reason for non-disclosure of such capital gains was that at the time of filing of return of income, the land documents were not available with the assessee as the same have been received by her in inheritance and hence computation could not be filed correctly. 4. The assessee in the revised computation has shown 5% share in these lands on which capital gain was computed at Rs. 43,69,774/-. At the time of finalization of order, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings on the ground that the assessee had furnished revised computation only when the show cause notice was issued to the assessee. In the penalty proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that the records of purchase and sale deeds were not readily available and accordingly, her husband Shri Yogesh Prajapati computed the capital gains on the basis of limited information and then got the return filed through a C.A. firm M/s Prakash Thakkar and Co., Vadodara. In this regard, an affidavit dated 19.09.2016 has been filed before the AO. On perusal of the original working of long term capital gain, I find that the entire sale consideration of 5 properties at Rs.9,95,43,700/-was considered and from the same, 95% was treated as cost of acquisition resulting into loss. Undisputedly, the share of appellant in the property sold by her father was only 5%, but by mistake in the absence of purchase and sale deeds, the entire sale c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t return of income was filed belatedly and hence capital loss could not be allowed to be carried forward and set off against income of subsequent year under this head. Accordingly, there was no incentive for returning capital loss. Therefore, reduction in capital loss deserves to be ignored while imposing penalty. The AO is directed accordingly. 4.3 Undoubtedly, the appellant has paid advance tax of Rs.13,65,000/- and since there was no other income, the appellant was aware about the tax liability on long term capital gains to that extent. However, the appellant has claimed entire amount as refund in the return of income filed on 03.09.2014 and hence this act of appellant certainly renders herself liable for penalty. Moreover, the revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
