2014 (11) TMI 1196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umstances of all the 4 cases are identical except for the amounts and therefore the submission made by her in case of one would be equally applicable to the other 3 cases and therefore all the 4 appeals can be heard together. We therefore proceed to dispose of all the 4 appeals by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience and thus proceed with the facts in the case of Ashish Satyapal Miglani in ITA No 1424/Ahd/2011. 3. Facts as culled out from the material on record are as under. 4. Assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for AY 07-08 on 19.12.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 12,02,782/-. The return of income was later revised on 9.3.2009 wherein the total income was declared at Rs. 23,20,134/- which included Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ade before AO and Ld. CIT(A). She further submitted that the Assessee is an individual and not maintaining the books of accounts. During the year, a piece of land that was owned by the Assessee jointly with other family members and one non-family member was sold. The short term capital gain arising from the sale of the land was inadvertently missed out to be shown in the return of income but later on realizing the mistake, the Assessee voluntarily filed the revised return of income wherein the short term capital gain was also included. The Ld AR further submitted that the revised return was filed by the assessee and income declared in the revised return was accepted by the AO without making any addition. With respect to Ld. ClT(A)'s obs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en made by him. 7. In the case of ACIT vs Ashok Raj Nath (Supra), where the assessee had disclosed the additional income towards the capital gains in the revised return of income and even though the revised return was found to be invalid, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) levied was deleted by the Tribunal by holding as under: "Held that merely because a notice under section 143(2) had already been issued and assessee filed revised return thereafter, disclosing additional income towards capital gains, which was not correctly shown in original return, that did not tantamount to detection of concealment of income under section 271(1)(c). The assessee voluntarily disclosed additional income during the course of assessment proceedings and pai....