TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts at para 2(i). This is a property in Mumbai. The Assessee claims that it was acquired several years ago. The coowners and the Appellant agreed to sell the property and by an agreement dated 15th June, 2004 for a consideration of Rs. 5,23,00,000/- to M/s. Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. 3. For the assessment year 2005-06, a return of income was filed on 31st October, 2005 declaring total income at Rs. 62,97,067/-. In computation of income, the Appellant disclosed that the property at Mumbai had been sold for the above consideration to the above entity. The Appellant claimed that the property had been purchased prior to 1st April, 1981 and therefore the valuation of the property on that date was approximately Rs. 20,00,000/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that the Appellant had filed inaccurate particulars of income with regard to capital gain. He computed the amount of capital gain short offered at Rs. 20,57,010/- and levied penalty of 100% of the tax allegedly sought to be evaded thereon. 5. Against this order of the Assessing Officer, Appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and it is stated that this Appeal was allowed on 25th February, 2011. 6. The Revenue filed an Appeal against this order of the Commissioner, which came to be allowed by the impugned order. 7. The grievance of the Appellant's Counsel is that the Tribunal, without calling for the order sheet noting or asking the Assessee reversed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs in relation to this gain and the record would substantiate this statement. 3. Mr. Gandhi, therefore, seeks time to produce an extract of the assessment record, particularly about this disclosure. At the request of Mr. Gandhi, stand over to 27-4-2015. We clarify, that in the event any such record is not produced, then the reasoning of the Tribunal will be accepted and thereafter these Appeals would be dismissed." 9. Today, when the matter was placed and at the request of Mr. Gandhi so as to enable him to produce the relevant record, he submits that neither any affidavit has been filed nor the record has been produced by a legally accepted and known procedure. We had earlier clarified to Mr. Gandhi that this Court cannot interfere wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the assessment year 2000-01, the Assessee provided multidisciplinary management consultancy services and having a worldwide reputation. It filed return of income on 30th November, 2000. The tax audit report was also filed. In the form 3CD, the relevant particulars were entered and it was stated that provision for payment of gratuity not allowable under section 40A(7) so paid and the Assessee claimed a deduction thereon in its return of income. This was contrary to the position, namely that the provision towards such gratuity was made and that was not allowable. According to the Assessee, the deduction was inadvertently made in the return of income despite such particulars in the form having been entered. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, however, the particulars were disclosed. It was a mistake in calculation. That was also on the basis of a mistaken indexation. This was not a case as was found before us. The Calcutta High Court has clarified that there is a distinction between furnishing of wrong particulars and making wrong calculation of particulars furnished. In the case of former, there is definitely a case for imposition of penalty. In the case of latter, there is no concealment. We find that the Calcutta High Court was dealing with a different factual scenario than the one which is dealt with by us. Even this Judgment is distinguishable on facts. 13. The only thing that can be said about the argument desperately canvassed before us is that the Assessing Officer....