2022 (6) TMI 844

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16 wherein penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for an amount of Rs.59,19,590/- has been confirmed. 2. Brief facts of this case leading to levy of penalty are as under. During the assessment year, assessee along with his brother Shri ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th the following reply information and documents for your kind perusal. 1. The assessee had deposited the amt in Capital Cain Account Scheme INR.2.90 Cr. & 6.50 cr. (6.30 cr +2.0 cr) = 9.4 cr and the assessee total investment before 31-08-2015 with capital gain a/c scheme was Rs.16,49,61,000.00 and the long term capital gain chargeable to tax is Rs.2,61,23,549.00 for which your honour had given ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... completely cornered by the AO he had no option to offer the said LTCG for taxation. Concluding portion of the penalty order reads as under :- "On consideration of overall factual matrix of this case, I am of considered view that the conduct of the assessee is not at all bonafide and explanations offered by him is not correct that the said revised computation of income was filed voluntarily. It ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... computation/defective computation on the advice of counsel at that time. Thereafter, assessee had corrected the defect to a great extent and the balance surrender so made was voluntary and no concealment of income was there. However, ld. CIT (A) rejected the same by observing that even after being pointed out Shri Rajpal Yadav, assessee's counsel insisted on the claim of depreciation u/s 54B and ....