9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 2012-13. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT (A) is justified in -- deleting the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) which has direct nexus with the evasion of tax emerged out of claim of bogus LTCG on penny stock by not following the CBDT, New Delhi's Circular No. 23 dated 06.09.2019 wherein it has been decided by the Board that notwithstanding anything contained in any of circular issued under section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specifying monetary limits for filing of appeals of department appeal before ITAT/HC/SC, appeals may be filed on merits as an exception to said circular in cases inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1)(c)." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed her original return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 05.10.2012, declaring an income of Rs. 7,79,500/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2019 was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee had filed her return of income declaring an income of Rs. 15,20,510/-, wherein, in addition to the original returned income, she had declared an additional income of Rs. 7,41,008/- on account of the sale of shares. 3. The A.O., thereafter, framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.11.2019. The A.O., while culminating the assessment, initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e subjected to penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Apart from that, the CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the A.O., while initiating penalty proceedings, had failed to mention whether or not the same was initiated for "concealment of particulars of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." Also, the CIT(Appeals) drawing support from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Rajib Garg, 313 ITR 256 (P & H), observed that a mere offering of additional income by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dehors any observation of the A.O. that the assessee had concealed income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income would not ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 1963, and dispose of the appeal after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') and perusing the material on record. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that as the assessee had in her return of income filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act dated 05.10.2012, therein claimed, Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of 2500 shares of M/s. Blue Print Securities Ltd. as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act; therefore, her case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2019 was issued to the assessee. In compliance, the assessee had filed her return of income u/s. 148 of the Act, declaring an income of Rs. 15,20,510/- w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
