2017 (5) TMI 1267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee individual was having one half share in a property which was sold for Rs. 44 lac. In the return filed, the assessee made a claim of deduction u/s 54F of the I.T. Act, for investment of Rs. 14,10,500/- in purchasing a residential plot with Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd.. The AO noticed that the assessee had not purchased any residential house, but he had purchased a plot without mentioning number and location, measuring 230.76 sq. m., from Ansal Housing, New Delhi for Rs. 12,19,186/- and other expenses, on stamp and development charges, amounting to Rs. 1,91,314/-. Alongwith the query put to the assessee in this regard, the AO further asked the assessee to explain as to why amounts of Rs. 1,76,120/- 10,85,150/- and 3,98,644/- may n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e particulars of his income by not disclosing his correct income and I am satisfy that the escapement of income on account of capital gain is Rs. 60,59,914/- has disclosed and worked out above, in para 6. The assessee is, therefore, liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as the provisions of part (A) of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961, which clearly attracted. The penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act 1961, for concealing the particular of his income is being issued separately". 6. The notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act 1961, dated 11.11.2008 (copy at APB 21) reads as follows: "Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2006-07, it appears to me that you have concealed th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the department itself is not sure of the charge to be framed against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, it is now trite that the charge for levy of concealment penalty has to be specific, in the absence of which, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable/sustainable. Reliance in this regard has correctly been placed on behalf of the assessee, on "CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory", 359 ITR 565 (Karn), wherein, it has been, inter alia, held that the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically, otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended, else no penalty can be imposed on the assessee. It is, thus, settled that the charge as to whether the assessee is guilty of fur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ific and not vague. 13. "Gujarat State Financial Services Ahmedabad Vs. ACIT" (copy at DPB 19- 49) has been rendered by the Tribunal, whereas "Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory" (supra) has been handed down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the findings wherein are directly on the issue of the charge being specific. Pertinently, as noted hereinabove, and as evident from the record, also not disputed by the Department, the Department has been taking shifting stands in the present case with regard to the charge against the assessee. 14. In "K.P. Madhusudanan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99 (SC) (copy at DPB 50-53), it was observed that when the AO issues to an assessee a notice u/s 271(1)(c), he makes the assessee aware that the provisions t....