2015 (3) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... seven grounds in this appeal but except ground no.1, other grounds are argumentative and supportive to the main ground no. 1 which reads as under:-  "1. The learned CIT(A) was not justified to uphold the penalty of Rs. 8,22,041/- levied u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T.Act." 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.9.2009 declaring income of Rs. 3,92,189/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and after necessary verification, the AO made addition of Rs. 39,90,498/- as income from long term capital gain. Subsequently, the AO issued notice to the assessee for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. After considering the explanation of the assessee, the AO imposed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cted by the Assessing Officer has held as under:- A survey u/s 133A was conducted on the assessee's premises in the course of which certain documents belonged to certain entities who had applied for shares in the assessee company were found. The AO called upon the assessee to prove the nature and source of the monies received as share capital, the creditworthiness of the applicants and the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee offered Rs. 40.74 lakhs as income from other sources "to avoid litigation and to buy peace". It was made clear that in making the surrender, there was no admission of concealment. The AO completed the assessment by adding the said sum and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ew of the aforesaid, I hold that the Assessing Officer has rightly charged the appellant company with concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Accordingly, the penalty u/s 271 (1 (c) of the Act is being sustained." 5. We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. From the quantum assessment order, we observe that as per order sheet entry dated 19.11.2011, the AR was asked to file the details in respect of property sold and purchased during the year under consideration and in response to the same, the assessee filed revised computation of its income on 26.12.2011 by stating that the assessee earned Rs. 39,90,948 as long term capital gain at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan and to offs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts and the genuineness of the transactions, the assessee simply folded up and surrendered the same amount by merely stating that it wanted to buy peace. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that in absence of any explanation in respect of surrendered amount the first part of clause (a) of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is attracted because the nature and source of the amount surrendered are facts material to the computation of total income. 7. In the light of factual matrix of the present case, we observe that the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from the case of CIT vs MAK Data Ltd. (supra) as the present case is related to the withdrawal of claim of section 54 by the assessee. From the operative part of the quantu....