2018 (2) TMI 1708

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en up together and are being disposed of by way of a consolidated order. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ITA no. 5752/Del/2015 may be taken up first. Ld. DR has no objection, therefore, the ITA no. 5752/Del/2015 is taken up first adjudication. First we take up ITA No. 5752/Del./2015 to assessment year 2010-11. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1. "That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in brushing aside the legal proposition that the revised computation cannot be ignored with reference to sections 139(1), 139(4) and 139(5) of I.T. Act on technicalities. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law and on facts in over ruling/over looking vario....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was framed vide order dated 14.12.2012. 5. The assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee jointly with her husband sold a property and capital gain arising there from was not disclosed in her return of income. Therefore, the AO made addition of the capital gain arising from the transfer of the capital asset and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessing officer imposed penalty on the amount of capital gain which was not disclosed by the assessee. Against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who after co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... transferred her share into a capital asset and did not disclose the capital gain arising there from while filing the return of income. The main contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the transaction was not detected by the revenue, it was volunteer disclosure of the assessee during the assessment proceedings. If this contention of the assessee is accepted it would set a wrong precedence as every assessee would take such plea. We, therefore, reject the same. Another argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the AO has not specified the charge. We have perused the notice dated 20.12.2012 issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevance contains to the same are reproduced as paper book page 5 rea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... erstwhile Ld. Counsel/ Chartered Accountant. 4. That in doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no mal intention in withholding the said information, as its disclosure would have enabled the appellant to claim exemption from capital gain tax as per law, in the return itself. 5. That without prejudice to above, Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law and on facts in ignoring the serious violation of audi- alterm rules and contravention of provisions of section 274(1) of I.T. Act by the Ld. A.O, even though it was vehemently agitated during appellate proceedings. 6. The likewise, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in brushing aside the failure on the part of Ld. A.O to record his satisfaction, a pre....