TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dication of the controversy available in any other appeal, we will make a specific reference to those facts. 2. It appears that there was a chequered history in determination of tax liability of all the respondents. In the cases of six assessees, three assessment orders were passed. The assessee Smt. Kamlesh Pal has filed her return of income on 31st October 2004 declaring an income of Rs.9,65,110 and agricultural income of Rs.43,500 for assessment year 2004-05. An assessment order was passed under sec. 143(3) on 29.12.2006 whereby the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.23,19,410. Learned Commissioner took cognizance under sec. 263 of the Act and set aside the assessment order. The order of the Learned Commissioner was not challenged, as stated by the learned counsel for the assessee. In pursuance of the Learned Commissioner's order, fresh assessment order was passed under sec. 143(3) read with sec. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 28.12.2008. The assessee did not file appeal against this assessment order but filed a revision before the Learned Commissioner under sec. 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Learned Commissioner has decided the revision of assessee vide order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Officer has passed second assessment order under sec. ,143(3) read with sec. 264 on 24.12.2010. The respondents have filed the appeals against the assessment orders and the appeals have been decided on Ist of June 2011. 6. In brief, we are concerned mainly with two issues i.e. whether penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposable upon the respondents on the additions made on account of long term capital gain and gifts received by them. All other additions were either deleted by the Learned CIT(Appeals) or not made by the learned Assessing officer while passing assessment order under sec. 143(3) read with section 264, i.e. in pursuance of the order of Learned CIT passed under sec. 264 of the Income-tax Act,1961, or partly reduced by the Learned CIT(Appeals) by her order dated 01.06.2011. 7. The first common addition available in the assessments of all the respondents and which led the Assessing officer to impose the penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) is with regard to the claim of long term capital gain. In the case of Smt. Kamlesh Pal, the facts are that learned Assessing Officer has directed the assessee to produce evidence for substantiating such claim. He called for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sale and purchase of the shares. 9. The next common item which is available in the cases of three respondents, namely, Smt. Kamlesh Pal, Neha Pal and Meera Pal is in respect of gifts received from Sh. Rahul Prakash, who has been alleged as a family friends and resident of 113/4, Swaarup Nagar, Kanpur. These persons have received gifts of Rs. 5 lacs each. Learned Assessing officer held that the gift was not genuine and he made the addition. 10. The third common issue is in respect of agricultural income. It is available in the cases of Ashok Pal - ITA No.3026/el/2011, Rachana Pal - ITA No.3030/Del/2011, Ramesh Pal - ITA No.3031/Del/2011, Suresh Pal - ITA No. 3033/Del/2011, Vinod Pal - ITA No.3035/Del/2011 and Smt. Meenu Pal - ITA No.3041/De/2011. Ashok Pal has claimed agricultural income of Rs. 12,000, out of this claim, an addition of Rs.3,000 was deleted. Rachana Pal has claimed Rs. 24,000. It is accepted, except Rs. 5,000. Ramesh Pal claimed Rs.82,000 and his claim up to Rs.57,000 was accepted. Similarly, Vinod Pal claimed Rs.24,000 as agricultural income. The addition to the extent of Rs. 16,000 has been deleted. In a way, all these respondents have claimed agricultural i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing officer. Copies of contract notes were submitted. Details of share brokers were submitted. How the share brokers were conducted their business is not in the hands of the assessees. They were operating in the stock exchange of Calcutta and not debarred from conducting the business. Thus, assessees have submitted all the basic details in support of their claims. With regard to the gifts, it was contended by the assessee that confirmation from the donors, details of payment, identity of the donors etc. were produced before the Assessing officer. The claim of the gifts was disbelieved on the ground that it is against the human probability. The gift was claimed only in the hands of three or four assessees. With regard to the third addition, he submitted that agricultural income was not accepted in toto. On an estimate basis, Assessing officer has partly accepted the agricultural income. Therefore, there cannot be any penalty for part disallowance of agricultural income. For buttressing his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions: 1) CIT vs. Bhartesh Jain reported in 323 ITR 358 (Del.); 2) Reliance Petroproducts reported in 322 ITR 158 S.C.; & 3) Puneet Sehg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is section can range in between 100% to 300% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee, as a result of such concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The other most important features of this section is deeming provisions regarding concealment of income. The section not only covered the situation in which the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars, in certain situation, even without there being anything to indicate so, statutory deeming fiction for concealment of income comes into play. This deeming fiction, by way of Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) postulates two situations; (a) first whether in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income under the provisions of the Act, the assessee fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be false by the Assessing Officer or Learned CIT(Appeals); and, (b) where in respect of any fact, material to the computation of total income under the provisions of the Act, the assessee is not able to substantiate the explanation and the assessee fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that the assessee had disclosed all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot routed through stock exchange and, therefore, the payment of STT is out of question and no exemption can be claimed under sec. 10(38) of the Act. It was also submitted in the said report that STT was not paid and this fact was proved that nothing was collected by the stock exchange. Contrary to this stand, the assessee before the Learned CIT(Appeals) submitted that learned Assessing officer himself accepted in his report that the transactions in shares were conducted through the broker against whom either inquiry proceedings were in progress or who were suspended by the SEBI. It was emphasized that Assessing officer has clearly recognized the existence of the broker and if brokers were duping their clients or the brokers were not passing the tax collected from the clients to the government then how the assessee can be penalized. Thus, according to the assessee, the Assessing officer has adopted two contradictory versions. He treated the transaction as bogus and yet also reported that the transactions were conducted through the brokers. It was also contended that if STT was not paid then exemption under sec. 10(38) can be denied to the assessee but Assessing officer cannot change....