TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the instant appeal, are that in the instant case, the Assesseeby filling its return of income has shown the loss of Rs.32,87,521/- towards capital loss, qua sale of property i.e. shop No. LG-24, South Point Mall, Gurgaon, on consideration of Rs. One 1,00,00,000/- which was purchased on consideration of Rs.1,32,87,521/- , therefore the Assessee was asked by the AO to furnish the sale and purchase deed of the property. In response the Assesseeby filling its reply submitted that it has received advance sale priceof Rs.1,10,00,000/- , for the said property during assessment year 2013-14 (Ledger Account of advance against property for year ending 31st March, 2013 is enclosed) and by mistake, the Assessee has in the assessment year 2014-15, ente....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-{Rs.32,87,521/- which was claimed as short term capital loss + Rs.46,07,886/- (Rs. 110,00,000/- -Rs. 63,92,114/-) } as capital gain. 2.3 The Assessing Officer also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, qua the addition for filing inaccurate particulars of income. Before the Assessing Officer, during the penalty proceedings, the Assessee claimed that during the assessment stage, the Assessee had already closed down its business and therefore, complete record for the assessment year under consideration was not traceable by the Company, due to which the same could not be produced due to time barring assessment proceedings. The Assessee in bona fide manner, considering all the documentary evidence as available with it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said penalty before the ld. Commissioner, who by impugned orderthough deleted the penalty qua addition of Rs.4778/-by holdingthat to impose the penalty on account of difference between the returned income (loss) and income(loss) as per computation, concealment through inaccurate particulars is not tenable, which is a rectifiable mistake, however, affirmed the penalty to the extent and on account of addition of Rs.78,95,407/- by concluding as under : "5.1 I have gone through the assessment order, penalty order, details provided by the appellant and other materials brought on record. In this case, the penalty have been imposed on the addition made towards capital loss shown by the appellant company....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents to substantiate the cost and other expenditure thereon. In fact the appellant itself has stated that due to the closer of business, the appellant could not submit the documents as not available. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the case has been completed in the normal scrutiny and the appellant is required to keep the documents and there is no substantial time has elapsed. Therefore, non-submission of documents cannot be taken as a substantial argument, to the favour of appellant. 5.4 Further, the appellant has accepted the decision of AO, in the assessment order, and this appeal is not related to the additions made in the assessment order and penalty being a separate order, disputing disallowance at this stage will not help th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d shown capital loss of Rs.32,87,521/- on the sale of property, however, the AO in the absence of evidence recomputed the same and determined the short term capital gain of Rs.46,07,886/-and made the addition of Rs.79,00,185/- and consequently, also initiated the penalty proceedings for filing inaccurate particulars of income and vide penalty order dated 29.06.2017, imposed the penalty of Rs.24,41,157/- on the basis of addition of Rs.79,00,185/- (78,95,407/- + 4778/-). 5.1 The Assessee before us demonstrated (as appears from paper book which was available before the authorities below as per certificate of the Assessee) that the Assessee has shown the amount of Rs.91 lacs with regard to purchase price of property i.e. LG 24 DLF South Point,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ticulars. The Assessee has furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as its income in his return, which details in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It is up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the Assessee had claimed the expenditure which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty it/s 271(1)(c). If the contention of the revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the Assessee will invite penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and it dearly not the intendment of the legislature". Hence, cons....