2018 (9) TMI 1921

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....here was furnishing any inaccurate particulars thereof and no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in the case of the assessee by directing the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-. 3. Facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 11.10.2010 for AY 2010-11 with returned income of Rs. 39,36,829/-. Thereafter, a survey action took place at office premises of assessee's husband Shri Gurjeet Singh Chhabra on 26.11.2010 and in the statement recorded during survey, in reply of Query No.56, Shri Gurjeet Singh Chhabra disclosed unaccounted income of Rs. 2.00 crore in the name of himself and his wife. Thereafter, on 11.02.2011, a search took place at the premises of Transword Furtichem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd thus, held that the assessee has concealed the particulars of her income and thereby reduced her due tax liability and levied penalty of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. In an appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), after appreciating the arguments came to the conclusion that the sale deed got registered on 03.05.2011 (for long term capital gains) and on 07.04.2010 (for short term capital gains) and due date for filing of income tax return for FY 2011-12 was October, 2011, yet such income from capital gains was neither shown in the return for FY 2010-11 nor shown in FY 2011-12 and, therefore, it is clear that such income was meant to be concealed. The revised return filed by the assessee will not save t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nalty is not leviable. The Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT-19 vs. Niraj Jindal in ITA No.463/2016 and CM No.26604/2016 dated 09.02.2017 has observed as under :- It is difficult to see any infirmity in the decision of the learned ITAT in the present case. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Thus, Explanation-5 cannot assist the claim of the revenue in the present case for the relevant assessment years under consideration before this Court for the simple reason that for the relevant assessment years, 2005-06 & 2006-07, no material was recovered during the search. Rather, the assessee added Rs. 21,65,932/- in the return filed pursuant to notice under section 153A. That a....