TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Mumbai, this appeal petition is being filed to consider the following grounds of appeal, which are independent and without prejudice to each other: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) erred in not considering the facts and explanation given during the proceedings. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has wrongly held that there is concealment of income as per judgement which has been overruled and or its effect has been diluted in subsequent judgements and without considering the reasonable cause of the same." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in washing and ironing of clothes. It is claimed by the assessee that he is an illiterate person , 66 year of age and small time Dhobi having no knowledge of complex provisions and nitty-gritty‟s of the 1961 Act . It all happens that the assessee filed its return of income for the first time before the Revenue for the impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m agreement dated 09-12-2003 between M/s Sagar Shopping Developers and the assessee , that the assessee‟s mother Smt. Sukhibai A Chaudhary was tenant and occupying the said residential premises . After her death tenancy rights got transferred to her sons (including assessee) and since the assessee got alternate premises free of cost under SRA scheme cost of acquisition of tenancy rights was „Nil‟ and purchase cost of the flat was taken at „Nil‟ by the AO while cost of stamp duty and registration charges was allowed by the AO as deduction while computing capital gains and capital gains were computed as under:- Flat at Mira Road Flat at Vakola Total Sale Date 08.06.2010 10.01.2011 Sale Consideration received 1175000 5150000 6325000 Less Brokerage Paid 23500 103000 126500 Net Sale Consideration 1151500 5047000 6198500 Less Index Cost of acquisition 706629 11655 718284 Less Index Cost of acquisition improvement --- 486567 486567 Total Long term capital gain 444871 4548778 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty u/s 271(1)(c ). 3. In this case the assessee has deliberately and consciously concealed its income by furnishing inaccurate particulars as mentioned in the assessment order. It shall not the amiss to mention here that the word 'conceal' implies to hide or withdraw from observation to cover or keep away from sight to prevent the discovery of to withdraw knowledge of it is thus implicit in the word 'concealed' that there has been deliberate act on the part of the assessee. Thus an element of deliberateness is embedded in the word 'concealment' even though the word deliberately was omitted by the Fin. Act 1964 w.e.f. 1.4.1965 NASA continental Exports Ltd. vs CIT (2002) 124 Taxman 172 (Hyd). 4. The assessee's default within the meaning of sec.271(1)(c) is clear and established as discussed above and also in the body of assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 24.03.2014. 7. In view of the above and of careful consideration of the fact and circumstances of the case, I am of firm opinion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of his income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c )....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to tax . It was submitted that assessee enclosed copy of agreement to provide alternate accommodation as per agreement dated 09.12.2003 wherein receipt in the name of his father dated 08.03.1977 at page no. 21 shows that tenancy was before 1977 in favour of his father and since there were payments made for the tenancy , the assessee was entitled for deduction towards cost of acquisition of tenancy but for the ill-advice of the tax practitioner , the assessee could not claim the cost of acquisition of tenancy and paid taxes as he was not having knowledge of provisions of Income Tax Act. It was submitted that it was the duty of the AO to have pointed out the said error and allow the cost of the tenancy at its indexed value as deduction. Thus it was submitted that there was no intention to conceal any income from Revenue. The assessee relied upon the following case laws as under:- 1. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT v.. Hari Om Ashok Sumar Sugar Works (ITR no. 78 of 1992) 2. Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Sania Mirza (order dated 09.02.2012 in ITA no. 526 of 2011) 3. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of income earned from the sale of flats. The appellant has also argued that the Tax Practitioner advised him that there will not be any taxable capital gain from the sale of premises since the appellant had purchased property from the sale of premises. 5.1. The appellant in its written submissions and the oral arguments made during the proceedings has vehemently challenged the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs. 2,44,875/- , The main contentions made by the appellant are as follows. i) The appellant was not having knowledge of income-tax and could not get the correct advise in respect of filing of return of income ii) The Tax Practitioner gave the incorrect advise to the appellant regarding the taxability of income from capital gains. iii) The appellant submitted the details of the property during the assessment proceedings. iv) There was no intention of the appellant to mislead the revenue. 5.2 The scheme of sec. 271(1)(c) visualizes imposition of penalty when the appellant has concealed income or when the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In addition to these two situations, penalty c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....practitioner, it would not result in complete exclusion of any mention regarding sale of fats from the computation of total income as well as return of income. The appellant has also argued that he was informed by the tax practitioner that there will not be any capital gains taxable in his hands because he has purchased property from the sale of premises. However, it is evident from the facts of the case that the investment in the new house property amounting to Rs. 38,04,940/- was much lesser than the total amount of sale consideration received from sale of two flats of Rs. 63,25,000/-. Since the provisions for taxation of long term capital gains as well the provisions for exemption u/s.54 of the I.T.Act are very clear, no fairly skilled tax practitioner will advise any assessee to not to show any particulars regarding the transactions of sale of flats. Had the appellant really provided the details of sale of flats to the tax practitioner along with the details of investment in the new property, the tax practitioner would have in the most probability advised the assessee to file the particulars in respect of sale of flats and to claim exemption in respect of the new property by gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to add, amend, alter or delete any ground of appeal at the time of appellate proceedings. No such option has been exercised by the appellant during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, it is clear that this ground of appeal is academic in nature and no decision is required in respect of this ground of appeal. For the statistical purposes, this ground should be taken as dismissed." 6. Aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A), the assessee has come in an appeal before the tribunal . The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that assessee has sold certain premises and has acquired another residential premises for which exemption u/s. 54 was claimed . It was submitted that assessee is an old and illiterate person engaged in washing and ironing of cloth and he is a small time dhobi. It is submitted that this is the first return of income filed by the assessee with Revenue. The assessee filed written submissions before learned CIT(A) which are placed in file. The learned counsel for the assessee has also relied upon the following case laws as under:- 1. Pankaj Kumar Gupta v ITO in ITA no. 486/Lkw/2016 dated 16.01.2018 2. P K Joshua v. ITO in ITA no. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per the agreement produced before the authorities below dated 09-12-2003 between the assessee and developer Sagar Shopping, the father had made payments under tenancy rights in the year 1977 on 08-03-1977 which showed that tenancy was held by father prior to 1977 which stood mentioned at page no. 21 of the agreement dated 09.12.2003 to provide alternate accommodation under SRA in lieu of tenancy rights. The tenancy passed on to assessee‟s mother on death of father . After death of mother of the assessee, the tenancy came to be in favour of the assessee under the tenancy laws. The mother of the assessee expired in the year 1980 . The assessee had not claimed the acquisition cost of tenancy while computing long term capital gains on sale of flat at Vakola which as per the assessee had to be taken based on prevailing value as on 01.04.1981 and thereafter indexation has to be applied as per cost inflation index. It is the claim of the assessee that assessee is illiterate person of old age non-maintaining good health and was ill advised by his tax Practitioner. It is also claimed that the AO despite having all the documents in his possession did not advised assessee to claim the ....