AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1050
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng assessment year 2012-13. 2. In the captioned appeal, the assessee has sought to assail imposition of penalty amounting to Rs. 22,08,500/- under s.271(1)(c) of the Act on short term capital gains offered for taxation in the course of assessment amounting to Rs. 71,90,875/- which was not included in the return of income. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee filed its return of income on 10.07.2012 declaring total income at Rs. 5,83,320/-. The return was selected for scrutiny. In the course of the scrutiny assessment, the AO called for various details including copy of bank statement. On the commencement of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee filed a revised statement of total income and included therein short term capital gains arising on sale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee is not conversant with the tax provisions and depends upon the tax consultant for its tax compliances. The assessee submitted before the AO that he was not aware about the tax liability on the sale of agricultural land and therefore same was not reported. It was submitted that pursuant to notice under s.142(1) of the Act, the Chartered Accountant (CA) on verification of documents advised the assessee about the tax liability on sale of agricultural land and therefore same was immediately reported to AO. The assessee filed a revised computation and also paid major portion of tax liability before any specific query was raised in this regard by the AO. Therefore, no malafide intention is attributable on the part of the assessee. It was sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... capital gains alleging concealment of particulars of income in not disclosing short term capital gains etc. A penalty of Rs. 22,08,500/- was accordingly imposed on the short term capital gains omitted to include in the return together with some interest income which also escaped inclusion in the return of income. 5. The assessee challenged the aforesaid penalty order of the AO before the CIT(A). 5.1 It was once again pleaded before the CIT(A) that the capital gain remained to be offered for taxation due to inadvertence and was suo motu offered prior to detection by the AO. The CIT(A) noted that the land sold was a non agricultural land. Having noted the various facts as capsuled above, the CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the satisfaction was stated to be formed towards 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' in the course of the assessment. However, the penalty was finally imposed for 'concealment of particulars of income' which is not permissible in law. For this proposition, the learned AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. vs. CIT 282 ITR 642 (Guj). Learned AR submitted that the 'satisfaction' of the AO in the penalty proceedings is not consistent with that of the satisfaction formed in the course of the quantum assessment. 7.2 Learned AR submitted in conclusion that in the circumstances where the assessee does not possess expert knowledge of the subject and has dutifully paid taxe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs and paid taxes thereon. No doubt, it is the bounden duty of an assessee to offer the income chargeable to tax in the return of income itself. The assessee has filed revised computation after the issuance of scrutiny notice seeking pertinent details including bank statement which could have easily unearthed the capital gains not offered thus far. However, this by itself will not, in our view, propel a reasonable person to draw an inflexible inference that omission was deliberate. The totality of circumstances is required to be gauged. The intention requires to be seen from the conduct of the assessee. The assessee herein is a technical person and may not necessarily know the complicated tax laws. A perusal of land sale agreement suggests....