Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S.SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Karnal dated 18.11.2013 wherein, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 72627/- levied by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.01.2013 is confirmed. The assessee has raised only one ground of appeal that in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant the order of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the order of the ld ACIT in imposing penalty of Rs. 72627/- u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged willful concealment of income and filing of inaccurate particulars of income is altogether arbitrary, illegal, void and uncalled for.
2. The brief facts of the case is that assessee is an individual who is a partner in firm and deriving income from a share of profit and also short term and long term capital gain and some lease rent. For the year he filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 11354570/- on 30.03.2009 and on 09.12.2010 assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made at Rs. 12225078/-. The impugned addition on which penalty is levied is of Rs. 320508/-. During the year the assessee has shown the long-term capital gain of Rs. 9328458/- on sale of agricultural land and during the course of assessment proceedings it was asked to furnish reconciliation of sale price of land with the computation of capital gain. It was submitted by the assessee that while working out the long term capital gain sale consideration is inadvertently taken at Rs. 10480842/- Page 2 of 3 instead of Rs. 10801350/- and therefore, there was a short long term capital gain shown by the assessee of Rs. 320508/-. On this sum ld Assessing Officer while making addition held that assessee has concealed particulars of his income/ furnished inaccurate particulars of income therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) was initiated. Subsequently vide order dated 18.01.2013 the ld Assessing Officer rejecting the explanation of the assessee vide letter dated 07.11.2012 levied the penalty holding that it is established beyond doubt that the assessee has willfully concealed the particulars of his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore liable for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, ld Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 72627/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mak Data Ltd Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us.
3. The ld AR reiterated the same arguments, which were raised before the lower authorities and further submitted that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of ITA No. 1190/2011. He further submitted that ld Assessing Officer has levied the penalty on twin charges, which was also mentioned in assessment order as well as the penalty orders, and therefore, on this basis the penalty is not sustainable.
The ld DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions. At the time of making an addition the ld Assessing Officer has raised the twin charges of concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee replied on the factual aspects vide its letter dated 07.11.2012 holding that it is an inadvertent mistake and therefore, penalty may not be levied. The ld Assessing Officer levied penalty also on the twin charges. The ld CIT(A) has not discussed that whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has concealed his income but confirmed the penalty merely relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was on concealment of income. In that particular case the assessee surrendered a sum of Rs. 40.74 lakhs on account of share capital the documents for which were found during the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act. However, in the impugned case the sale consideration was mentioned in the three sale deeds submitted before the ld Assessing Officer for which sale consideration was recorded therein. The assessee has merely taken incorrect total of sales figure. Therefore, apparently it is an inadvertent mistake for which penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, even otherwise the Assessing Officer has not specified