TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 709
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to as 'the Act'] dated 16.06.2016 for the assessment year (AY) 2013-14. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in imposing penalty of Rs. 6,15,466/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that penalty imposed by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the work of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recorded in the assessment order and accordingly made addition of Rs. 29,87,700/- and initiated penalty. 3. The AO issued show-cause notice dated 21.12.2015 under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response to show-cause notice, the assessee filed his reply dated 26.05.2016. In the reply, the assessee stated that during the relevant period, the assessee sold one property (asset) and earned capital gain. While filing original return of income on 26.03.2014, the assessee understated sale consideration by Rs. 29,87,700/- due to mistake of Accountant. The Accountant committed mistake as the cheque of sale consideration was not encased in his account before 31.03.2013. The assessee on coming to know about the mistake filed r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted return cannot be revised. The revised return cannot be treated as valid return, thus, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular and fit case for levying of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO accordingly levied penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded on such LTCG offered by assessee in revised return. The AO worked out the penalty of Rs. 6,15,466/- in his order dated 16.06.2016. On appeal before the CIT(A), the action of AO in levying penalty was upheld. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty on similar lines. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue and perused t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. CIT vs. Bhavinkumar M. Dagli- 377 ITR 389 (Guj.) 3. CIT vs. Shankerlal Nebhumal Uttamchandani- 311 ITR 327 (Guj.) 4. Pr.CIT vs. Smt. Prabhjot Kaur Chhabra - 419 ITR 094 (MP) 5. CIT vs. Suraj Bhan - 294 ITR 481 (P&H) 6. Smt. Pushpaben P. Sonarupawala vs. ACIT- 17 CCH 023 (AHD Trib. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. DR submits that the mistake in the original return of income was apparent as the assessee has not offered the additional income, offered in the revised return. In the original return, the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars. Admittedly, there was difference of Rs. 29,87,700/- as far as return filed on 26.03.2014. The AO was justify in levying the pe....