TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 12-09-2013. The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application No. 49/PN/2014 u/s. 254(2) highlighting the apparent factual error recorded by the Tribunal while deleting the penalty vide order dated 12-09-2013. The Tribunal after examining the factual position recalled its order on 10-10-2014 with the following observations: "4. Both the parties have been heard. We find that an error has crept in the order of the Tribunal on account of wrong appreciation of facts relating to the addition made on account of capital gains, in particular in relation to the adoption of sale consideration for the purposes of computing capital gains. Under these circumstances, it would appropriate if the order of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer made additions/disallowances. The Assessing Officer further observed that the second return of income was filed by the assessee beyond the time limits specified u/s. 139(5) of the Act, therefore, it cannot be considered as revised return of income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were initiated against the assessee for not disclosing income fully and truly in the return of income. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,95,800/- was levied by the Income Tax Officer vide order dated 11-05-2007. Aggrieved by the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty. Now, the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the stamp duty of Rs. 2,38,030/- claimed as expenses for transfer of the property included penalty of Rs. 1,14,030/- paid for contravention of law which is not an allowable expenses in connection with transfer of property. Further, the assessee in his original return of income did not show any income from house property. However, in the return of income subsequently filed during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee admitted rental income of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The assessee has not voluntarily disclosed all these suppressed incomes. It was only during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, when questionnaire was issued to the assessee, the assessee succumbed and disclosed the actual sale consideration of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the time of filing of second return of income and in the statement of facts filed before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the time of filing appeal, the assessee admitted the sale consideration of land as Rs. 36,50,000/-. The relevant extract of the 'statement of facts' is reproduced here-in-below: "The assessee received sales proceeds of Rs. 36,50,000/- on account of sale of land. According to Assessing Officer the assessee should have adopted Stamp Valuation Rs. 36,83,872/- in view of S. 50C of the Income-tax Act." Further, both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have recorded in their findings that in the revised return, while computing the capital gains the sale consideration was adopted at Rs. 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Madan Theatres Ltd. (supra). The contention of the assessee is that when Capital Gains are computed by invoking the provisions of section 50C and the assessee has computed Capital Gains on actual sale price, it is not a case of filing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. The facts of the case relied upon by the ld. Counsel is entirely different from the facts of the case in hand. In the present case the assessee has not correctly disclosed the sale consideration in the original return of income. The penalty has not been levied for not adopting market price in accordance with the provisions of section 50C but for not fully and truly disclosing the sale consideration in the return of income. Therefore, the r....