2012 (9) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 3,30,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) ignoring the fact that the assessee had intentionally concealed income by inflating the cost of acquisition of house property in respect of which long term capital gain as declared at Rs.1,40,176/- as against long term capital gain of Rs.16,06,200/- computed, taking the cost of acquisition of house property as per books of accounts." 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee company returned capital gain on sale of flat situated on 2nd floor portion of 140/184, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi amounting to Rs.1,40,176. The cost of acquisition was taken at Rs.8,81,691/- and the base year for indexation was taken as 19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d this conduct of the assessee reveals that the assessee had the knowledge of the manipulation right from day one but he furnished incorrect and baseless information. Ld. DR also submitted that everything was very clear from the books of accounts regarding cost of potion of property sold and the assessee also failed to submit evidence regarding amount of brokerage of Rs.94,800/-. Therefore, the AO rightly held that the assessee is liable to be penalized for intentionally concealing information regarding capital gains on the basis of manipulated figures of cost of property sold. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee company.   6. On careful perusal of impugned order, we observe th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... taken place with regard to computation of capital gains. First of all, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the AO had not issued any show cause notice pointing out the mistake and no positive material was brought on record to prove that the assessee had inflated the expenditure and deflated the receipts to reduce the taxable income pertaining to long term capital gain. The ld. CIT(A) also held that the expenditure furnished by the assessee was a bona fide one with sufficient reasons and the same was neither found false nor unreasonable by the AO. Therefore, he cancelled the penalty allowing the appeal of the assessee. 8. In the case of Union of India vs Dharmendra Textile Processors reported as (2008) 166 Taxman 65 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 27.11.2008. On the basis of revised computation of income as evident from the assessment order, however, ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)( c). The said impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)( c) is passed on 27.5.2009. In that said impugned penalty order, ld. AO fails to appreciate the bonafide disclosure of the assessee and the relevant rulings of the Apex Court on the ideal situations regarding levy of penalty under the common facts and circumstances. Assessee is relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sudershan Silk & Sarees vs CIT (300 ITR 205) marked annexure 'B' in this matter Apex Court has justified the order of H'ble CIT(A) and H'ble....