TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 966
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....responding assessment order passed u/s.143(3), dated 30th of September, 2011 and 26th of November, 2011 and the corresponding penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) dated 14th of March, 2012 and 30th of May, 2012 that these appellants/brothers had 50% share in a property situated at Village-Emagird, District-Burhanpur. The AO had received an information u/s.133(6) of IT Act according to which these brothers have sold a property but that was not disclosed in the return of income filed. The explanation of the assessee was that a piece of land was purchased in village Emagird, District-Burhanpur admeasuring at 24,798 sq. ft. on 30th of May, 1991 for a sum of Rs.92,000/-. The cost of land was shown by them in their respective balance sheet. The land was s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Long Term Capital Gain was not disclosed by the assessee; hence, concealed the same which resulted into a levy of penalty of Rs.3,24,290/- respectively. Being aggrieved the matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority. 4. Before learned CIT(A), the assessee has placed reliance on a decision of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) and argued that it was an advertent error as well as a silly mistake on the part of the assessee which had happened due to the hospitalization of their father; hence, the Long Term Capital Gain could not be shown in the return of income. However, learned CIT(A) was not convinced and affirmed the action of the AO by dismissing the appeals of both the persons. 5. From the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fit case of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of IT Act. Reliance was placed on Kailashbhai Ambalal Shah, 129 ITD 135 (Ahd) and a decision of ITAT 'A' Bench Ahmedabad pronounced in the case of ITO Vs. Smt. Chandrikaben Arvind Patel (ITA No.2333/Ahd/2012, A.Y.2008-09) order dated 04.10.2013. 7. We have heard both the sides at some length. At the outset, it is worth to discuss some of the salient facts of these two cases and those were that the assessee has filed the balance sheet along with return wherein the amount of sale consideration was shown as a liability on one hand and on the other hand the land in question was shown as an asset. The other fact was that the father of these appellants was admitted to P.D. Hinduja National Hospital du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an also be applied. 8. As far as the decisions cited by learned DR are concerned, we have noted that in one of the case of Kailashbhai Ambalal Shah (supra), the assessee was caught in respect of unaccounted investment in bank which was informed to the AO through AIR (Annual Information Return). In the absence of any plausible/satisfactory explanation, it was held by the Respected Co-ordinate Bench that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income by not disclosing the said unaccounted investment in the bank. Even in the case of Smt. Chandrikaben Arvind Patel (supra), it was found by the Respected Coordinate Bench that there was a clear cut non-disclosure of Long Term Capital Gain and no part of it was even disclosed by the assess....