TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 590
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without appreciating the facts that the AO had brought on record the material to prove how the assessee concealed the particulars of income. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 33,41,977/- imposed on the assessee u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 mainly on the income detected during the course of survey which would have been concealed by the assessee had the survey operation u/s.133A had not been conducted." 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a HUF, as Karta filed return of income originally on 31.07.2013, admitting an income of Rs. 3,30,747/-. A survey operation U/s 133A of the I.T.Act,1961 was conducted in the business premises of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Rs. 80,60,938/- being income from Long Term Capital Gain). 3. While completing the scrutiny assessment, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly a show cause notice was served on assessee on 26/12/2014. In response, the AR of the assessee filed a letter dated 08/01/2015 and stated therein as under: During the Course of assessment proceedings books and vouchers have been produced for verification. It was brought to the notice of the assessing officer that there was a calculation mistake in valuation of closing stock after taking into consideration/ after verification of same the income from sale of plots was estimated at 8% of the gross receipts of Rs. 5,97,67,000/- which works out to Rs. 47,81,360....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....80,60,938/- and business income on sale of plots amounting to Rs. 47,81,360/-, earned by the assessee during the year under consideration and therefore, it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, he levied a penalty of Rs. 33,41,977/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and contended that the assessee had admitted the additional income as agreed upon during the course of survey with honest belief and understanding that the no penalty would be levied on the additional income. The Ld AR further argued that the assessee was under the belief that the sale of agricultural lands was not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the AO has rightly imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. With regard to recording satisfaction of the AO She submitted that AO recorded in the assessment order that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated, which is sufficient compliance of satisfaction recorded by the AO for initiating the penalty. 9. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee argued that the assessee converted the agricultural land into plots and sold the same and he was not aware of the provisions of income-tax Act. Since the department has conducted the survey the assessee came to know that conversion of agricultural lands , developing and sale of the same attracts income tax accordingly admitted the income. He, therefore, argued that there is no case for penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....delivered the judgment in the case of V.V.vs. Projects & Investments(P)Ltd. v.CIT 300 ITR 40 on DECEMBER 6, 2007 and had no occasion to consider the amendment made in Finance Act 2008. Therefore the case law relieup on by the Ld.CIT(A) is not applicable in the assessee's case. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chennakesava Pharmaceuticals Vs. CIT, [2013] 30 taxmann.com 385, observed as under: 29. It is to be noted that the Legislature had amended section 271 of the Act by the Finance Act, 2008, and inserted sub-section (1B) with retrospective effect from April 1, 1989, which provided as follows : "271. (1B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of a....