TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 836
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.03.2013, confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). Since common issue arises in both these appeals, we heard both the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. Shri G. Baskar, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was search in the Vel Tech Group of Institutions in the year 2010. A simultaneous search was also conducted in the case of the present assessee. For the assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 9 lakhs towards lease advance. According to the Ld. counsel, the reason for making the addition is that the copy of agreement with Vel Horticulture Ltd. was not produced before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erence of opinion between the assessee and Assessing Officer for taking the valuation of property as on 01.04.1981 that cannot be construed as concealment of income as claimed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition. 4. The Ld.counsel for the assessee further submitted that during the financial year 2002-03, the assessee showed opening cash balance of Rs. 22,90,198/- as on 01.04.2002. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that she was holding agricultural land to the extent of 6.46 acres, which was used for purchase of property. Disbelieving the claim of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. According ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the extent of Rs. 9,06,196/- on account of long term capital gains, the CIT(Appeals) found that the assessee has disclosed the long term capital gains and the difference was only with regard to cost of acquisition of property. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158, he deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. According to the Ld. D.R., when the assessee has not furnished the correct cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981, there was concealment of income, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) ought not have deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. D.R., further submitted that the Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs. 20 lakhs towards....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer. 7. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, there was search in the premises of Vel Tech Group of Institutions during the year 2010 and consequently, a search was conducted in the premises of the assessee. During the course of search operation, several incriminating materials were found in respect of sale of property at Tirupathi and investment in the landed properties. The Assessing Officer made addition and also levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. With regard to addition of so-called agricultural income, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. With regard to long term capital gains, the CIT(Ap....