TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 852
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are as under: "1.0 The appellant Smt K. Hemalatha is an individual. A search operation was conducted on the appellant's son-in-law Shri K. Srinivasa Rao at his residence situated at Plot No.1219 Road No 36, jubilee Hills, Hyderabad on 09-10-2007. Consequent to search operation notice under sec.153C dated 26-06-2008 was issued for the AY 2005-06 to the appellant. Appellant filed her return of income on 01-08-2008 by admitting total income of Rs. 89,310/- and an agricultural income of Rs. 1,26,500/-. Learned DCIT, central circle -2, Hyderabad (AO) issued notice under Sec 143(2) and Sec 142(1) dated 06-04-2009 and conducted the scrutiny proceeding calling for information and details from time to time. Appellant submitted details called....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority the assessee received a notice u/s 274 read with section 271 (1)(c) dated 09-02-2012. 5. The assessee vide her letter dated 22-02-2012 stated that even though the Hon'ble Tribunal sustained addition of Rs. 6,30,500/- the fact is that there is no concealment of income. The agricultural income earned year after year had been accumulated in her capital account over a period of 12 years and sale proceeds of house at Kovvuru were also credited to the capital account. She was unable to produce proof of the agricultural income though it was really earned. Hence there is no concealment of income. 6. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that even in the absence of returns of income prior to the assessment years 2002-03 the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer in respect of income of Rs. 6,30,500/- by relying on the explanation 1(A) to sec. 271(1)(c). 4.2 During the course of the appellate proceedings the assessee contended the even though the Hon'ble ITAT sustained the addition of Rs. 6,30,500/-, there is no concealment of Income as the assessee had accumulated agricultural income over a period of 12 years along with sale proceeds of house at Kovuru, and further submitted that she is unable to produce proof of the same. The assessee relied on the following case laws in support of in her contention. 1. Jasbir Singh Saini Vs. Income Tax Officer [2015] 61 Taxmann. Com 230 (Chandigarh- Tribe.). 2. Kanbay Softwa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....howdhary Vs. CIT (Cal) 155 ITR 29. (ii) Rahmat Devft & Engineering Corporation Vs. CIT (Cal) 130 ITR 602. (iii) CIT Vs. Rattam Singh Grewal (P&H) 304 ITR 75. (iv) Charndatt H. Danget Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT, Mumbai) 126 ITO 483. In the above cases, it was held that unexplained investment is deemed to be income for the purpose of levying penalty if no satisfactory explanation is offered and penalty is leviable. These decisions are applicable in the assessee's case as he has not furnished satisfactory explanation either during the assessment proceedings or the appellate proceedings. 4.4 In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tself in penalty proceedings so as to justify non-levy of penalty. Considering the fact that these assets are acquired much earlier and assessee has shown them as opening balance only, in our opinion the mere addition of part of the amount does not attract penalty for concealment. Considering these facts of the case the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not warranted. Accordingly, the same is set aside. 7. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05th October, 2016 ============= Document 1 S.No Date of Acquisition Name of the Asset Survey No. Area in Ac. Purchase Value Guntas 1 Before 99 2 19-Jan-99 Pooppalaguda 294(294/2) Vattingulpally 5Ac 56,....