TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The penalties were levied by ACIT Circle-10(3), Mumbai u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his orders of even date 30-05-2012. 2. The only common issue in these two appeals of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Both assessee have raised an identical worded grounds and facts are exactly identical regarding the issue of long term capital gains arising out of sale of the land and building situated at Sector-8 Vashi, Navi Mumbai and sold it for a total consideration of Rs. 1.50 crores. Both the assessee had 50% share each amounting to Rs. 75,00,000/-. This property was acquired on 11-10-1999 and the cost of acquisition was amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being 50% each amounting to Rs. 14,42,330/-. The assessee file original return income and declaration of long term capital gain from the above sale, which was computed at Rs. 13,04,346/- after claiming the deduction of Index cost at Rs. 38,05,154/- and also exemption u/s 54F of the Act amounting to Rs. 35,60,500/- for investment in the residential property. The AO claimed that the assessee was asked to furnish the details of sale of investment and property vide notice dated 11-07-2011 (the assessee denied that this notice is not issued to assessee). The assessee vide letter dated 22-08-2011 admitted that the indexed cost of the asset sold was originally taken at Rs. 38,05,154/- and therefore, she submitted a revise particulars of income and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h were to be the case, still when the assessee filed the Return after taking services of a qualified Charger Accountant, wherein the actual income was grossly under reported, amount to gross negligence on the part of the assessee and his CA and that itself is sufficient to attract the levy of penalty as was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case o K.P. Madhusudan Vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) that is for the assessee to prove that his failure to return the correct income was not due to fraud or negligence on the part of the assessee and his CA and that itself is sufficient to attract the levy of penalty as was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.P. Madhusudan Vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) that is for the assessee to prove that his failu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rect indexation; b) non-consideration of stamp duty and registration charges as part of reinvestment in new house; & c) excess exemption claimed. The assessee Suo Moto carried out corrections and tax+ interest was paid upon detection of error but prior to detection by the AO. Immediately upon detection of the error, the assessee revised computation, paid differential tax with interest, and filed revised computation prior to any hearing in the case, drawing AO's attention to omissions in the Return. The assessee suo moto got his income recomputed and paid tax with interest on 22.7.2011, revised Return of Income though prepared, but could not be uploaded due to time-barring. The assessee flied revised computation with letter to AO da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red. In any case, the assessee realized his mistake and rectified the same by revising income & paying tax, prior to actual assessment proceedings. The following needs to be noted in this connection: (i) AO admits that assessee disclosed and his only objection is that the disclosure was in response to AO's notice raising specific query (para 2(iii) & 4.1) but, we noted that his notice does not contain any specific query. (ii) Assessee's explanation since inception that the error was computational is reproduced at para 3.l of the Order, & iii, AO has not alleged non-disclosure or suppression of any material facts relevant to computation of income. iv AO assessed total income, including the long term capital gains of the basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... We are of the view that as per rule of evidence, there is distinction between set of facts "not proved" and facts disproved and facts proved. Benefit of the principle that mere non-satisfactory nature of explanation furnished cannot amount to proof of falsity of explanation furnished can apply in case the fact-finding authority reaches to a stage where it can only conclude that the fact alleged is "not proved" which would result that except rejection of the explanation furnished by the assessee, there is no material to sustain the plea of concealment. But, on the other hand, if the state of affairs reveals a stage where one can positively reach a conclusion that the fact alleged is proved or disproved, the principle that mere rejection of ....