TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the other material may be considered and decide the appeal on the basis of written submissions. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and being disposed off on the basis of material available on record. 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was completed vide order dated 26.12.2016. Thereby, the Assessing Officer ("AO") made addition of Rs.24,87,500/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain ("LTCG"). The basis of computing capital gain was that the assessee paid stamp duty on market value of Rs.49,75,000/-. Therefore, the AO made addition of Rs.24,87,500/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the impugned penalty was imposed vide order dated 22.12.2017 of Rs.2,84,382/-. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The assessee has made following written submissions:- PAN: CAVPS9753D Reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the I.T. Act. The concealed income in this case comes to Rs. 15,71,914/- on which tax sought to be evaded works out to Rs. 2,84,382/-. The minimum and maximum penalty leviabe in this case u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act comes to Rs. 8,53,146/- and Rs. 2,84,382/- @ 100% and 300% respectively. However, considering the facts of the case I impose a penalty of Rs. 2,84,382/- u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act after obtaining approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 2, Meerut, vide F.No. Addl.CIT-MRT/Range-II/Penalty Approval/2017-18/283 dated 19-12-2017. CIT- Finding: In this case, the A.O. has imposed penalty of Rs. 2,84,382/-* since the assessee had, in the opinion of the A.O. concealed particulars of income amounting to Rs. 15,71,914/-. In appeal the only argument of the Ld. A.R. is that since the capital gain has been calculated on the basis of section 50C which is a legal fiction penalty is not leviable. It is a matter of record that the assessment in this case was completed U/s 148/144 which shows that there was no intention on part of the assessee to disclose his capital gain as per the provision of the law. The A.R. is right in argui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... surrendered an amount of Rs.2,47,395/- as income of the assessee on account of undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 147/143(3) on a total income of Rs.42,75,350/-. Since the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 filed her return of income declaring the same income which was originally returned and during the course of assessment proceedings had surrendered the income of Rs.2,47,395/-, the Assessing Officer in the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) levied penalty of Rs.84,090/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. According to him, law does not provide that when an assessee makes a disclosure and claims it to be voluntary regarding his unexplained income, he has to be absolved from penal provisions especially when the case was taken up for scrutiny on that very issue of suspicious transactions. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., a copy of which has been filed during the course of hearing shows that the inappropriate words in the said notice have not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to whether penalty is being levied for concealing the . particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. I find the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 656 has held that where the inappropriate words in the notice issued for levy of penalty are not struck off and the notice does not specify as to whether the assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) is liable to be deleted. I find the SLP filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide C.C. NO.11485/2016 order dated 05.08.2016. Since in the instance case also, the Assessing Officer has not struck off the inappropriate words and the notice does not specify as to whether the penalty is levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing particulars of income, therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High ....