TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 amounting to Rs. 28,84,660/-. Hence, we take up ITA No.1871/Mum/2014 in the case of Sharada Tukaram Bhor. The relevant ground raised which reads as under: - "The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in:- 1. Disregarding that penalty was levied on baseless adverse inferences, without establishing either concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the Appellant. 2. Rejecting Appellant's suo motou revision for non-filing of revised return, disregarding that the same had time-barred. 3. Not appreciating bona finds of the Appellant's explanation. 4. Disregarding that the penalty was groundless and that the levy was without application of mind. 5. Upholding AO's false premise of a notice having been served on the Appellant, disregarding that the same was proved to be false. 6. Disregarding that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y not correct since vide the letter issued u/s 142(1) dated 11-07-2011 the assessee was specifically called for various details and documentary evidences pertaining to specifically called for various details and documentary evidences pertaining to assessee's computation of income, investment made, assets transferred during the year etc., in response to which the assessee filed the revised computation enclosing only part revised documentary evidences called for. Thus the assessee's claim that the revised computation was voluntary is factually wrong. Further even if such 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to AO dated. 22.7.2011 by: (i) admitting his mistake at the first instance; (ii) pointing out the exact errors, (iii) informing that Revised Return was not getting uploaded due to time-barring, & (iv) requesting that Rs. 31,40,917/- be added to Returned income. As such, far from withholding any particulars, the Assessee volunteered the information prior to assessment proceedings. The assessee also proved his bonafide by filing chronology of events, which are as under: 6. It was explained by the assessee that had the assessee not been under a belief that CA's computation as coned, he would have revised it much prior to 22.7.2011, in own interest, at least to save interest liability, which he has paid. Further, AO's contention that assessee came forward to declare income only after the case was selected for scrutiny in Sept 2010, is also not true, for the reason that assessee would have revised income in September 2010 itself, or thereafter would not have waited till July 2011 increasing his liability of interest u/s 234-B & u/s 234-C of the Act. As such the explanation seems to be correct for the reason that assessee had trusted the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the correctness, truthfulness or accuracy of the particulars furnished by the assessee cannot be closed at the threshold by looking at the return. That would negative and render otiose the very provisions of the statute. 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 explanation cannot result in levy of penalty will have no application. To reach this stage also, inquiry will have to be undertaken of the disclosure made in the return or in the statement annexed to the return and to arrive at a ....