SHRI KISHORE KUMAR KUNDANMA ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5 (2)(1), BENGALURU

O R D E R

PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM :

3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and has entered into a Joint Development Agreement along with other co-owners whereas the Assessing Officer on perusal of the documents find that the income has escaped assessment and issued Notice dt.25.3.2013. In compliance thereto, the assessee filed reply on 25.4.2013 with copy of Return of Income filed on 26.7.2007 along with the Annexures. Whereas A.O. found that the assessee has filed Return of Income on 26.07.2007 with total income of Rs.1,11,20,880 and agricultural income of Rs.25,650 and other incomes. The Assessing Officer issued Notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In compliance, the ld. AR attended from time to time and submitted the details. The Assessing Officer on perusal of JDA with M/s. Brigade Enterprises Limited and with M/s. Rainbow Properties found that there is no disclosure of share of profit from co-owner properties where the assessee has 1/7th share being Rs.7,51,226 and determined the total income of Rs.1,18,97,756 and passed order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act Dt.24.2.2014. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee filed details and CIT(Appeals) has confirmed the penalty order and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

4. At the time of hearing, the learned A.R. has submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty. Where as Show Cause Notice do not indicate whether penalty is levied for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Further the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed an appeal against the order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the said assessment year and on further appeal, the Tribunal has set aside the issues, in dispute to the file of Assessing Officer and placed copy on record and prayed for allowing the appeal. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of CIT(Appeals). 5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the sole disputed issue as envisaged by the ld. AR is in respect of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the quantum appeal in assessee's own case for the