2017 (3) TMI 664

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied natural justice to the appellant. 3. That the ld ClT(A) had proceeded to dismiss the appeal , on the incorrect finding that the appellant had not contested the addition made and thus the assessment order had become final. (the appeal against the assessment order was pending as on that date). 4. That on the facts of the case an under the law, the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is liable to be quashed / annulled, because the "charge" was not specific. The ld. A.O. had initiated penalty proceedings vide notice dt. 27.03.2015 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271, by simply placing tick mark against the' printed line" you have concealed the particulars of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of such Income . ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or u/s. 142(1)/143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated........." 4. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) was not leviable. 5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) is liable to be deleted, because no specific date of non compliance was mentioned. 6. That on the facts o f the case and under the law, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) is liable to be deleted, because the non compliance was unintentional, as the assessee's father (who used to look after the matters relating to income tax and follow up with the professional) was terminally ill due to cancer during such period and the ultimately died ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, the AO worked out the taxable capital gain at Rs. 31,63,066/- in which the share of the assessee was determined at Rs. 6,32,613/- and by considering the income declared in return of income dated 27.3.2008 the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 7,14,783/-. The AO, thereafter, imposed penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act by observing that as per Explanation-1 of Section 271(1) of the Act the assessee has failed to offer any explanation vide his order dated 29.9.2015. Aggrieved by order of the AO, the Assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 15.9.2016 has upheld the action of the AO of imposing the penalty. 5. Now the Assessee is aggrieved against the i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n made by the Stamp Valuation Authority. Thus, the addition has been made by the AO by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act. It is evident from the assessment order that the AO has not questioned the actual consideration received by the assessee provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO has not given any finding that the actual sale consideration is more than the sale consideration admitted and mentioned in the income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also not the case of the revenue that the assessee has failed to furnish the relevant record as called by the AO to disclose the primary facts. The assessee has furnished all the relevant facts, documents/ material including the sale agreement and the AO h....