2018 (6) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder passed under s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 31/12/2015 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- "1. The Ld .CIT(Appeals) erred both in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,37,734/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 in respect of bonafide and inadvertent claim of excess exemption u/s 54F ignoring the submissions and holding that the penalty was rightly levied for concealed income for which inaccurate particulars were furnished. The ld CIT(Appeals) ought to have accepted the plea raised and deleted penalty. 2. The ld C1T(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ght to be evaded u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT (A) who confirmed the order of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT(A), assessee is in second appeal before us. The learned AR before us submitted as under: "2. Appellant sold land for Rs. 19,17,000/- and Long term capital gain was computed by appellant at Rs. 18,76,687/- which is same as computed by AO [Para 3 of Assessment Order dated 27.07.2015 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263] 3. However, the appellant having made investment of Rs. 15,48,100/- in the residential house, computed Exemption by deducting Rs. 15,48,100/- from LTCG of Rs. 18,76,687/-and declared net capital gain at Rs. 3,28,587/- and after set off....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....32/Chd/2012 (Attached EX-B) and Sarv Prakash Kapoor vs DCIT ITA No: 95(Agra) 2012 26 taxman.com 256 (Attached EX-C). Ld CIT(A) did not consider the said decisions and observed that judgment from Jurisdictional ITAT or Gujarat High Court on the issue were not submitted. 7. All information and particulars were furnished and there was no dispute regarding fact of investment made in new house or figures of investment. The difference is due to confusion of the counsel between two provisions of exemption. In view of above facts and legal position emerging from three decisions, it is prayed that penalty be deleted. 8. Without prejudice to above, there is also no firm charge as to whether the AO is satisfied about inaccurate parti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate particulars of income/concealment of income. It is held that the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is therefore directed that the assessee shall pay by way of penalty in addition to the amount of tax." On perusal of above, it is clear that the AO has not levied the penalty on the specific charge as mandated u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. In such facts and circumstance the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 42 taxmann.com 54 has held that penalty cannot be imposed without mentioning the specific charge. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: 9. Regarding the contention that the Asses....