TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 672
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nging the order of penalty passed by the Assessing Officer came to be allowed. 2. Brief facts are as under. 3. The respondent is a proprietor of a sales agency. He had filed the return of income for the year 2011-12 on 24.10.2011. Such return was taken in scrutiny. The Assessing Officer passed order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) on 25.02.2014. He initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Despite the assessee's objections, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,399/under his order dated 23.02.2016. 4. On 24.09.2016, the assessee filed appeal against such order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication of the ITD system, it was noticed that the assessee has filed ereturn in Form No.SUGAM 4S, on 24.10.2011. In this return, it was found that LTCG of Rs. 47,93,267/was not appearing in the Return of Income filed. Thus, it was clear that the assessee had concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extend, which attracts penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C), of the IT Act, 1961. Had this case not been selected for scrutiny, the assessee could have gone away with lower return of income, i.e. gross total income as claimed by the assessee in his computation of income. It is observed that the assessee has not reflected the LTCG in his return as the ITR4S does not have a separate column for the same. However, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee, despite which, the Appellate Commissioner proceeded to decide the appeal on merits and by an order dated 25.09.2017 dismissed the same. We are informed that the assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal challenging the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 25.09.2017 and the Tribunal by the order dated 13.12.2017 has allowed the appeal and thus set aside the same order of penalty observing that the Assessing Officer had completely ignored that the long term capital gain has been included in the gross income of the assessee and thus the assessee did disclose the capital gain in the income and therefore this was not a fit case for penalty. 7. The main ground on which this petition has been filed by the Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of an appeal [to the Commissioner (Appeals) or] to the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has not waived his right of appeal; or (b) where the order is pending on an appeal before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)]; or (c) where the order has been made the subject of an appeal [to the Commissioner (Appeals) or] to the Appellate Tribunal." 9. In terms of clause (a) of subsection (4) of section 264, revisional powers would not be exercised, inter alia, in a case where the period of limitation for filing appeal has not expired and the assessee has not waived the right of appeal. This is essentially to ensure that at the hands of the same assessee a single issue does not receive consideration at the hands of two separate and indepe....