TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are illegal and against facts. v. Accordingly it is prayed that the penalty imposed may kindly be quashed or such other relief as may be admissible be granted. 2) The assessee filed his return on 09.10.2006 declaring income of Rs. 1,17,92,340/- inclusive of long-term capital gains at Rs. 1,14,80,474/- and agricultural income at Rs. 49,000/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") on 28.12.2007 and noticed that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income as long-term capital gains were not disclosed at the correct figure which worked out at Rs. 1,20,81,323/- instead of Rs. 1,14,80,474/- as shown by the assessee. In the assessment order, Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made sale of two properties on 30.12.2005 for consideration of Rs. 1,26,04,166/- and the cost of these properties were shown to be acquired in the year 1991-92 & 1996-97 at Rs. 2,80,312/- & Rs. 2,50,000/- respectively. After taking into account the cost inflation index of 199 & 305 for the year 1991-92 & 1996-97 respectively, the assessee declared income from long-term capital gain at Rs. 1,14,96,71....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act. In response to the same, authorized representative of the assessee appeared and submitted written submission wherein it was admitted that the overstatement of cost of acquisition (Rs. 11,07,453/- instead of Rs. 5,06,604/-) of the land sold during the relevant year was a mistake and was not done with a mala fide intention to evade tax. Assessee further submitted before the Assessing Officer that his accountant has committed a mistake by communicating the total cost of acquisition of the land without taking into account the assessee's share for the same (which was 1/4th of the total area). Also the registered purchase deed could not be located by the proprietor at that instance. After the case was taken up for scrutiny more strenuous efforts were made to locate the said purchase deed and the same was produced in the assessment proceedings as aforesaid. At no point the assessee tried to conceal any facts or to file inaccurate particulars. The said mistake was conducted owing to the fact that the assessee had migrated to Delhi and many documents could not be located at the time of preparation of the income tax return. Hence, there was no concealment of facts or filing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he has attached Reply to penalty letter dated 23.06.2008; Copy of Questionnaire from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bathinda; Copy of the order- sheet during the Assessment Proceedings; Copy of the order-sheet during penalty proceedings; Copy of a/c's of Sh. Anish Kumar from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1992 filed with Income Tax Return; Copy of Agreement for purchase of land & English Translation; Copy of Order of I.T.A.T., Amritsar Bench, I.T.A. No. 232/ASR/2008 in the case of Smt. Charanjit Kaur; Copy of Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT(Karnal) Vs. Smt. Raj Rani; Copy of Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT (Chandigarh) Vs. Sh. Tikka Ram; Copy of Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT(Karnal) Vs. Sh. Amarnath; Copy of Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq & another Vs. Munshi Lal & another AIR(1981) and Copy of Written Submission. In the second paper book containing pages from 36 to 93, he has attached Computation of Capital Gain as per Income Tax Return filed by the Assessee; Computation of Capital Gain as computed by the A.O.; Copy of Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Buil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, assessee produced books of accounts along with various informations which were examined by the Assessing Officer and he found that the assessee had made sale of two properties on 30.12.2005 for consideration of Rs. 1,26,04,166/- and the cost of these properties was shown to be acquired in the year 1991-92 & 1996-97 at Rs. 2,80,312/- & 2,50,000/- respectively. After taking into account the cost inflation index, the assessee has declared income from long term capital gain at Rs. 1,14,96,713/-. The assessee was asked to produce copies of registered deeds in respect of properties purchased & sold. From perusal of one of the purchase deed, it was seen that though the property has been acquired at a cost of Rs. 2,80,312/- but the assessee's share in this property was 1/4th and thus the total cost of acquisition of the assessee should have been 2,80,312/4=70,078/-. The Assessing Officer further found that the assessee has purchased this property on 29.05.1998 whereas while computing capital gain, it has been mentioned to be purchased in the year 1991-92 and thus has computed capital gain by taking the cost inflation index of the year 1991-92. These discrepancies were pointed out t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the assessee has made sale of two properties on 30.12.2005 for consideration of Rs. 1,26,04,166/- and cost of these properties were shown to be acquired in the year 1991-92 & 1966-97 at Rs. 2,80,312/- & 2,50,000/- respectively. After taking into account the cost inflation index for the year 1991-92 & 1996-97, the assessee has declared income from long term capital gain at Rs. 1,14,96,713/-. The Assessing Officer perused the registered deeds in respect of these properties purchased & sold and found that the assessee's share in these properties was 1/4th and the total cost of acquisition of the assessee should have been 2,80,312/4=70,078/-. It was also noticed that the assessee has purchased this property on 29.05.1998 whereas while computing capital gain, it has been mentioned to be purchased in the year 1991-92 and thus has computed capital gain by taking the cost inflation index. These discrepancies were pointed out to the assessee by the Assessing Officer but assessee did not tender any explanation in this regard and he himself admitted in the penalty proceeding that overstatement of cost of acquisition (Rs. 11,07,453/- instead of Rs. 5,06,604/-) of the land sold during ....