TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in - 1. Confirming Penalty of Rs. 10,67,798/- u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as the notice u/s. 271(l)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act,1961 was issued without specifying the limbs for which the penalty was levied. 2. Confirming penalty of Rs. 10,67,798/- u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 particularly when there is no case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particular and income declare in revised return was accepted. 3. Not following the decision of ACIT v. Ashok Raj Nath (19 ITR (trib) 70) of Delhi Tribunal, Bhavin Kumar M. Dagli (ITA No. 1179/Ahd/2011) dated 30/06/2014 of Ahmedabad Tribunal (Approved by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court), P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised return of income declaring long-term capital gains of Rs. 51,83,487/- on sale of the aforesaid properties. The assessee's contention was that assessee had inadvertently omitted to disclose the aforesaid capital gains in the original return of income for the reason that the assessee was under the mistaken impression that the aforesaid land was an agricultural land and hence the capital gains on sale of such land was exempt from taxation. However, the assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee firstly, on the ground that the revised return had been filed by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(4) of the Act and further, it was only once notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 31-08-2015 was is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified this mistake through a revised return of income before the same was detected the AO, The assessee has cited various decisions in support of her claim that disclosure by assessee during assessment before detection by AO was voluntary disclosure and does not warrant penalty u/s 27l(l)(c). Having considered the facts and rival contentions I find it uncontroverted that in the original return of income the assessee had not declared the impugned capital gain and that the revised return of income was filed after issuance of notice u/s 143(2} and that the revised return was invalid return, Issue is whether in these facts disclosure by assessee can be said to be voluntary so as to save him from penalty u/s 271(l)(c). The note....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The counsel for the assessee drew our attention to notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 31-08-2015 at page 38 of the paper book and submitted that in the aforesaid notice, on the basis of which the assessing officer had levied penalty, there is no mention of sale of any immovable properties by the assessee during the impugned year under consideration. Accordingly, it cannot be inferred by any stretch of imagination that the revised return of income filed by the assessee, in which the assessee declared capital gains tax with respect to the aforesaid immovable properties, was in pursuance to the aforesaid notice under section 143(2) issued by the Department. In fact, perusal of the afor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AIR Report. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that the revised return of income, in which the assessee disclosed details of sale of immovable properties Rs. 54,20,000/- was not in pursuance to notice issued by the Department under section 143(2) of the Act, for the following reasons: firstly, on perusal of notices issued by the Department, it is seen that the query regarding the sale of immovable properties amounting to Rs. 54 .20 lakhs was enquired into for the first time by the Department vide notice dated 30-06-2016, whereas the assessee had already filed revised return of income on 31-10-2015. Secondly, in the notice d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Jaysukh M. Parmar 33 Taxmann.com 422 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), the Ahmedabad ITAT held that where notice issued under section 131 did not give any indication about any material with Department regarding concealment of income by assessee, merely because thereafter assessee filed revised return, before recording of statement under section 131, declaring additional income, no penalty was imposable upon assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of Raj Bricks Field46 taxmann.com 281 (Punjab & Haryana), the High Court held that where return filed by petitioner is voluntary, filed in good faith and before detection of any concealment, neither penalty would be levied under section 271(1)(c) nor any criminal proceedings under section 27....