2016 (2) TMI 227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Briefly stated, the facts as emanating from the orders of the authorities below are that the case of the assessee was originally assessed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short, the Act] by the then Assessing Officer Circle38(1), New Delhi, vide her assessment order dated 22-11-2010. During the course assessment proceedings, it was pointed out by the Assessing Officer that as per ITS details available with the department, the assessee has sold two immovable properties, i.e. one on 16-02-2008 for Rs. 34,08,000/-and another on 11-03-2008 for Rs. 52,90,000/- and the assessee was asked to file the details and documents of the above said immovable properties. The assessee, after going through his records of the said period ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d were credited. After completing the re-assessment proceedings in this case, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee and vide her penalty orders dated 27-04-2012, passed under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act imposed the penalty @ 200% amounting to Rs. 25,33,380/-. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) reduced the quantum of penalty to 100%, against which the department is in appeal. 3. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the assessing authority and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in giving relief to the assessee. He further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the nature and extent of concealment and that the AO had imposed p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty may be dropped. In the penalty order dated 27-04-2012, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it has been alleged by the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings, has filed wrong affidavit. In this regard it was submitted that the respondent filed the true and correct affidavit wherein the assessee has rightly denied having sold the two immovable properties mentioned in the ITS details available with the department. The assessee actually sold two immovable properties but not the immovable properties so mentioned in the ITS details available with the department for the said assessment year. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed that it was incorrect to say that the assessee filed false/misleading affidavit du....