2014 (8) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng with MMTC. The return of income for the concerned assessment year was filed on 28.7.2009 declaring taxable income under the head "salaries" amounting to Rs. 2,67,680/-. The assessment was selected for scrutiny through CASS on the basis of A.I.R information. Scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26.12.2011 making an addition of Rs. 21,76,717/- (bank interest of Rs. 275 + Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 21,76,442/-). Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated and penalty of Rs. 4,94,425/- was imposed vide order dated 25.6.2012. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) reads as follows: "I have go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee on the sale of subject property, the calculation of capital gains was 'nil' and on this belief transaction was not disclosed in assessee's return of income. Thereafter in view of proceedings u/s 50C of the Act, the assessee became liable for capital gain and he offered the same for taxation. The revised computation of capital gain was accepted by the Revenue and exemption u/s 54 was duly granted to the assessee. The capital gains liability arose on account of application of sec. 50C of the Act. The stamp duty value of the subject property was taken as the consideration deemed to have been received by the assessee. In view of the deeming provision u/s 50C, the assessee has made liable for capital gains tax. There has been no conce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urate particulars of income. 10. It is also observed that the CIT(A) had relied on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Jharkhand High Court in the case of CIT Vs S. V. Electricals P. Ltd. (155 Taxman 158) and CIT Vs Ashim Kumar Agarwal (153 Taxman 226) respectively where it was held that where the assessee surrenders his full income, though at a later state, there was no question of any concealment on his part and consequently no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable, and that a omission form return of income did not amount to concealment. 11. In view of the discussion above and the cited decisions, surrender of the amount by the Assessee after receipt of the questionnaire could not led to an inference that it....