TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified in holding that there was concealment warranting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c)? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the revised return filed on 9.5.2005 was not voluntary even though notice under Section 148 was issued only on 14.12.2005 and the enquiry by the DDI also pertained only to the later assessment years? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that penalty was leviable, by ignoring that the difference arise only due to the methodology of computing the capital gains on the sale of shares and not due to their non-disclosure in the original return? 2. The assessee is an individual. He filed return of income on 29.07.2002, admitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... during the assessment year 2002-03, he had bought and sold the said shares many times, which did not yield any profit during assessment year 2002-03 and hence, was not included in his return for the assessment year 2002-03. However, while he was going through the records and the case laws for preparing the answers to the questions during the investigation, the assessee found that the method adopted for calculating the profit was incorrect. Thereafterwards, the right method of FIFO to calculate the profits was adopted. As the original shares were acquired by the assessee at very low rates, the revised calculation yielded large profits; hence, no concealment or inaccurate particulars could be attributed to the assessee. He pointed out that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lusion that there was no voluntariness on the part of the assessee in filing the revised return. Thus the wilful act of concealment of particulars and furnishing inaccurate particulars being there, he levied minimum penalty of Rs.8,06,628/-. 5. Aggrieved by this levy of penalty, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who agreed with the assessee that there was no justification for levy of penalty. He reasoned out that the Assessing Officer had not given any explanation in the order of assessment on the disclosure of capital gains arising on the sale of shares; that the Officer had not given any explanation as to why he had not taken any action till 14.12.2005, the date on which Section 148 proceedings ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of the assessee was recorded by the DDIT on 01.04.2005 and only subsequently thereon, the assessee filed the return on 09.05.2005, including the sum relating to the capital gains received on the sale of shares. The assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act was completed on 27.12.2006, accepting the second return of income, which was to be treated as return in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal pointed out it was no doubt true that there was no specific satisfaction recorded during the course of assessment proceedings. However, considering Clause (IB) of Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the said requirement was necessary while making the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as no allegation of concealment in the assessment order on the assessment made under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. He further pointed out that there was a difference in the methodology of calculation of capital gains and hence, he immediately volunteered to file revised returns, disclosing the details and paid the tax thereon and hence, there was no evasion of tax on the assessment made under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, to hold that there was concealment of income. In fact, the assessment itself was based on the revised returns filed by the assessee. In the circumstances, he submitted that it was incorrect to say that the Revenue had found huge transactions in shares, calling for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts herein clearly point out to the contumacious conduct of the assessee that but for the investigation and the enquiry made by the Revenue, the revised returns would not have come as regards the income relating to the capital gains, arising on the sale of shares. 10. It is seen from the facts that the enquiry herein made by the DDI was initiated under letter dated 11.03.2005 and a statement was recorded on 11.04.2005. Based on the enquiry, the revised return was filed by the assessee on 09.05.2005, offering an income of Rs.79,08,118/- under the head of capital gains. The original return filed made no reference to the sale of shares at all and it merely indicated the salary income received by the assessee. 11. It may be of relevance ....