TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as disclosed by the assessee in the details of return of income as well as during the assessment proceedings and thus the element of concealment of particulars of income does not get attracted in assessee s case. The decision of Hon ble Apex Court RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] is squarely applicable in assessee s case. The decisions relied by the DR will not be applicable in the present case as the limb under which Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was invoked is missing in the present assessee s case, in fact, the quantum thereafter has been deleted in assessee s case and, therefore, the very basis of the penalty does not survive. Appeal of assessee allowed. Condonation of delay - delay of 1823 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... donation of delay application alongwith the affidavit explaining the delay. The Ld. AR submitted that the appeal against order of CIT(A) dated 18.12.2014 was served on 29.12.2014 and the appeal should have been filed before the Tribunal by 17.02.2015, but the same was filed on 14.02.2020, hence there is a delay of 1823 days. The affidavit regarding reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay is placed at Paper Book page Nos.123 to126 127 to 148. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee and his brothers belonged to agriculturist family and the assessee was a NRI and was staying in USA from 2015 to 2020. His financial and Income Tax matters were handled by his brothers namely Shri Amrutbhai S. Patel and later on by Shri Jashubhai S. Patel t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d all his various papers and documents in which order of CIT(A) dated 18.12.2014 came to the knowledge of the assessee and immediately contacted the Chartered Accountant. As per the advice of the Chartered Accountant the present appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 14.02.2020 resulting into delay of 1823 days. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay may be condoned and the matter may be heard on merit. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Katji Others, 167 ITR 471. 4. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee should have taken proper cognisance when he was aware that assessee s brothers could not handle the financial matter including tax matter due to their overage. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r scrutiny and the assessment was finalised on 24.12.2010. The assessee s total income was Rs.2,03,45,060/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,11,99,608/- as Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee on compensation and addition of Rs.89,22,836/- as Long Term Capital Gain by disallowing the claim of exemption under Section 54 of the Act. Subsequently penalty proceedings under Section 271(1(c) of the Act was initiated by issuing notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 24.12.2010 as well as on 06.02.2013. The Assessing Officer, after taking cognisance of the assessee s reply, has imposed penalty of Rs.45,61,650/- for the reason of concealing particulars of income. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
