TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 927
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd jointly with his brother sold agricultural land at Village Ramsinghpura, Tehsil Sanganer on 28.12.2010 and 09.02.2011 for a total consideration of Rs. 5,66,78,800/- in which the assessee's ½ share come to Rs. 2,78,39,400/-. The assessee filed his return of income on 21.02.2013 declaring long term capital gain at Rs. 64,61,650/- after claiming the deduction Under Section 54B and 54F of the Act. The AO has completed the assessment U/s 143(3) by making the additions inter alia on account of undisclosed sale consideration received in cash of Rs. 59,04,000/-. The other additions made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction Under sections 54B & 54F of the Act were deleted by this Tribunal in quantum appeal and the order of this Tribunal has been confirmed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court . In the mean time, the AO initiated the proceeding U/s 271(1)(c) and levied the penalty of Rs. 55,83,424/- vide order dated 31.03.2017. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act only to the extent of the addition made on account of undisclosed sale consideration received in cash. The penalty levied in respect of the other additions on account of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y order passed by the AO is legally not sustainable. 3.1 Alternatively, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that it is a case of bonafide mistake in filing the return in as much as the assessee has provided the copy of bank account and sale deed to the counsel. The cash amount was deposited in the bank account but the counsel while preparing the return has failed to consider the same and the assessee being not conversant with the technicalities of filing the return as prepared by the counsel and thus, there was bonafide mistake in not offering such amount for tax which was suo moto stated by the assessee when he was enquired about the deposit in the bank account. Thus, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that for such bonafide mistake the penalty should not be levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that it is not a case of the assessee that he apprised the tax consultant all the correct facts about the sale consideration but only when the AO has examined the assessee about the cash deposit in the bank account the assessee revealed the source of the same as sale consideration received in cash over and above the sale cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, the addition made by the AO on account of sale consideration received in cash which is subject matter of the appeal before us is clearly a case of concealment of particulars of income. Hence, at the time of recording the satisfaction the AO has clearly set out of the charges of major disallowance in respect of claim of deduction U/s 54B &54F which falls in the category of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, so far as the satisfaction recorded by the AO in view of Section 271(1B) of the Act once the AO has clearly recorded the satisfaction in the assessment order the same shall be deemed to constitute a satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceeding under clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act. Hence, so far as the satisfaction of record by the AO in the assessment order there is no infirmity. As regards the certainty of charge since the penalty was initiated in respect of all three additions made by the AO out of which some additions fall in the category of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and other one which is the subject matter of the proceeding before us falls in the category of concealment of particulars of income. Therefore, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consideration of Rs. 1,50,0,00,000/- from Mr. Jagdish and others. Assessee has also incurred stamp duty charges of Rs. 80,000/- and registration charges etc. of Rs. 6,87,190/-. Regarding claim under section 54F of Rs. 52,00,000/-, the assessee has submitted a copy of valuation report from registered valuer in which total estimated construction value of the house constructed by the assessee is determined at Rs. 47,00,000/- as against Rs. 52,00,000/- claimed by the assessee." The AO has levied the penalty in respect of all additions on which both the limbs were attracted then we do not see any error or illegality in the order passed by the AO U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The decision relied upon the ld. AR will not help the case of the assessee. 5.1. As regards the alternate plea of the assessee that is a bonafide mistake, we find that the sale consideration in cash cannot be detected from the sale documents until and unless the assessee who was knowing a true facts disclosed the same to his tax consultant for the purpose of computing the capital gain. It is not the case of the assessee that the assessee has brought this fact to the knowledge of the tax consultant theref....