9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The Learned CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer of levying penalty of Rs. 7,48,090/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Learned CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer of levying penalty though the initiation of penalty proceedings has been made vide notice dated 27.12.2017, which is defective in as much as the said notice was issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, and hence, deemed to be null and void. 3. Your appellant prays to reserve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns with the following observations:- "b) The Appellant has taken a very general stand that he had forgotten to declare STCG in the Original return filed. On one hand, the Appellant has maintained proper books of accounts and on other hand he is stating that he forget to declare STCG in the return. These are contradictory statements. Once the proper books of accounts are maintained then these sale and purchase transactions of the said asset, Housing Loan taken, Interest on Housing Loan etc must be duly recorded in the books of accounts maintained. Then, there is no question of forgetting to declare STCG in original return filed. These facts show that Appellant has tried to cover up this concealment of income in guise of forgetting to decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently omitted to declare the sale of the aforesaid property in the original return of income for the reason that at the time of sale, the assessee had paid advance tax of Rs. 5,00,000/- (on 26.12.2014) and also the purchaser had deducted TDS on purchase of immovable property under Section 194IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 42,120/- on 26.12.2014. Therefore, the assessee was under the bona fide belief that since taxes have already been paid on sale of aforesaid immovable property, there was no requirement to reflect the sale of immovable property in the return of income. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that even during the course of original assessment proceedings, there was no additional tax liability on account of sale consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (including tax deducted at source under Section 194 IA of the Act). Accordingly, it is evident that there was no intention of evading payment of taxes on short-term capital gain arising from sale of aforesaid property. Secondly, it is observed that the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer by adding the difference of Rs. 8,18,177/- by invoking the deeming provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act by holding that the purchase price of the property was lower than the FMV of the property for stamp duty valuation purposes. Therefore, the addition was made by invoking the "deeming provisions" under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that the assessee had concealed the particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
