2014 (6) TMI 700

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... M: Challenging the order dated 13. 08. 2012 of the CIT(A)-5, Mumbai, assessee has raised following Grounds of Appeal: (1) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the assessing Officer levying penalty of Rs. 1777975/- u/s. 271(1) (C) of the Act. (2)The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete the gr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee had shown index cost of acquisition of flat at Rs. 7. 36 lakhs, that he had claimed exemption u/s 54/54F against the LTCG on the sale of flat. He determined the index cost of acquisition at Rs. 92. 14 lakhs and restricted the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 54/54F for the investment in new property, AO initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 2. 1. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). After considering the submissions of the assessee and the penalty order, FAA held that assessee had shown indexed cost acquisition of flat at Colaba at Rs. 7. 36 lakhs, that during the assessment proceeding, he submitted that property at Colaba was purchased before 1981, that the cost price had to be taken at value as on 01. 04. 1981 for the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the order of the FAA. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that while filing the return of income, the assessee had shown the indexed cost at Rs. 7. 36 lakhs, during the assessment proceedings before the AO, he revised the claim of indexation and same was rejected by the AO. In our opinion, the revision of indexation claim was one of the arguments....