TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdiction to levy penalty and the consequent order levying penalty becomes bad in law and such order is liable to be quashed. 3. In any case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that that the learned assessing officer had already initiated the penalty proceedings on additions made and in the absence of any enhancement of assessment, no jurisdiction to levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act could have been assumed by the CIT(A). The order passed is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 4. In any case and without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not specifically pointing out the ground for initiation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e., concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of specific ground for levy of penalty, the entire proceedings become bad in law and therefore, the order passed is liable to be quashed. 5.1 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) having initiated the penalty for both the limbs i.e., for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, has erred in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of concealment of particulars ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es issued by email to the assessee, the assessment was completed by making addition to the capital gains being income not declared in the return of income by an amount of Rs. 3,88,51,069/- on 15/12/2017. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3.1 Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee filed following written submissions. 3.2 The Ld.CIT(A) observed that, the total consideration received by the assessee amounting to Rs. 3,75,83,000/- was not acceptable to the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed copy of the sale deed dated 16/07/2014 according to which the total sale consideration received towards the sale of 8.36 acres of land was Rs. 5,37,08,200/- out of which assessee received a consideration of Rs. 3,75,83,000/- for parting with 5.85 acres of land and Smt. Savitri Vipin Chandra being the co-vendor in the sale deed received consideration of Rs. 1,61,25,200/- for parting with 1.62 acres of land. 3.3 The Ld.CIT(A) accepted the sale consideration received by assessee to be Rs. 3,75,83,000/- in respect of the LTCG computation. However, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that assessee claimed brokerage expenses of Rs. 7,51,660/- in respect of which as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nting to Rs. 7,51,660/- and also denied the cost of improvement claimed the exemption claimed u/s. 54F and 54EC amounting to Rs. 1,15,46,786/- in the rectification order passed by the Ld.AO dated 22/05/2018. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had not furnished any inaccurate particulars or concealed any material facts for the purpose of completing the assessment. She submitted that the Ld.AO on assumption of wrong facts made disallowances. It is submitted by the Ld.AR that the Ld.CIT(A) on verifying various submissions of the assessee granted relief partially. This itself shows that there was no concealment of facts by the assessee or filing of inaccurate particulars. The Ld.AR submitted the addition was confined only to the extent of commission paid for sale of property and indexed cost of improvement for want of PAN details of the persons to whom it was paid. She submitted that the revenue do not doubt the payment made through banking channel. She thus prayed for deleting the penalty levied in the above facts of the case. On the contrary, the Ld.DR placed reliance on orders passed by authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perate when there is a failure to disclose fully or truly all the material particulars of income which lead to the correct computation of income in accordance with the provisions of the Act. So when any fact material to the determination of an item as income or material to the correct computation is not filed or that which is filed is not accurate, then the assessee would be liable to penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The expression 'has concealed the particulars of income' and 'has furnished inaccurate particulars of income' have not been defined either in section 271 or elsewhere in the Act. However, notwithstanding the difference in the two circumstances, it is now well established that they lead to the same effect namely, keeping off a certain portion of the income from the return. According to Law Lexicon, the word "conceal" means: "to hide or keep secret. The word 'conceal' is concelare which implies to hide. It means to hide or withdraw from observation; to cover or keep from sight; to prevent the discovery of; to withhold knowledge of. The offence of concealment is, thus, a direct attempt to hide an item of income or a portion thereof f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder: 1. 2. 3. This appeal is being filed by the appellant an individual, being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 15.12.2017 for Assessment Year 2015-16, passed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A notice dated 14/03/2018 was issued u/s 226(3) of the Act by the JCIT (Intl txn) circle-2(1), Bangalore to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Kochi, Emakulam where the appellant is having bank account. It is stated in the notice that a sum of Rs. 1,78,48,300/- for the Assessment year 2015-16 plus interest u/s 220(2) is due from the appellant and the bank is required to pay the amount of arrears directly to the Income tax Department at the earliest. When this copy of this notice was served on the appellant, the appellant contacted the his Authorised Representative who in turn met the Assessing officer. The Assessing officer had told that the assessment order for the year was passed on 15/12/2017 was sent through e mail. The assessed income as per the order is Rs. 5,50,46,820/- as against the returned income of Rs. 1,61,95,750/- The appellant is a non resident Indian since 1995. The appellant is working with Sony Midd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e sum of Rs. 5,37,08,200/- is the total sale consideration as stated above) In para 3 of the assessment order the assessing officer writes that a proposition notice dated 23/11/2017 was also emailed., This email was also not served upon the appellant. In view of the time barring nature of the proceedings and the 4 CITAX 12 halın Document 2 alleged non compliance of the appellant to the notices issued, the assessment was concluded on best judgment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144 of the Act. Tax is computed accordingly and following interest is levied. Submission Interest u/s 234B Interest u/s 234C Rs. 43,82,202/- Rs. 2,61,360/- 1. This appeal was filed by the appellant an individual on being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 15.12.2017 for Assessment Year 2015-16, passed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessed income as per the order is Rs. 5,50,46,820/- as against the returned income of Rs. 1,61,95,750/- 3. The appellant is a non resident Indian since 1995. The appellant is working with Sony Middle East and Africa FZE and is based in Dubai. 4. For the year relevant to year under appeal, the appellant filed....