TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1033
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 02(Asr)/2014, for the assessment year 2007- 08, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the case of the appellant-assessee fall under the preview of explanation 3 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant-assessee was under bonafide belief that consideration received on the sale of agriculture land as per agreement to sell was not taxable? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal order is sustainable on the true and correct interpretation of the provision of Section 271(1) (c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al addition of Rs. 37 lacs in her capital account as sale price of the agriculture land. She produced the copy of the agreement to sell dated 8.8.2006 to the effect that she sold her agriculture land to one Jai Devi for a consideration of Rs. 37 lacs and also disclosed that she had deposited the said amount in the firm where she is a partner as capital gain. However, the Assessing Officer referred to the sale deed dated 8.8.2007 showing that the assessee had sold her agriculture land for a sum of Rs. 11.90 lacs. Even before the assessment, on 3.2.2007, the assessee deposited Rs. 2,25,000/- under self assessment as a part of the tax and agreed to deposit the entire tax later on as at that time her financial position was not good. On 18.2.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the assessee was liable to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as she had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Further, it was held that the return filed by the assessee was a non est return. Even no explanation was furnished by the assessee to substantiate the claim of not filing the return voluntarily. The Tribunal observed that the case of the assessee fell under main provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as there was definite concealment in the facts and circumstances and, therefore, reference to Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the CIT was unjustified. The Tribunal had restored the penalty amounting to Rs. 8,44,050/- levied by the Assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is count, the return filed by the assessee is a non est return. 7.1. The assessee in the same explanation had claimed the return to have been filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The fact that notice in the present case has been issued on 15.02.2010 and served on the assessee on 18.02.2010 and the assessee filed the return on 18.02.2010. If the return is treated to have been filed after service of notice u/s 148 of the Act, then the fact that the return has been filed when the income tax department detected the concealment of income. No cogent explanation has been submitted by the assessee to substantiate the claim of not filing the return voluntarily. The assessee was short of finances and, therefore, did not deposit th....