TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Year (A.Y) 2011-12. 2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is confirmation of Penalty of Rs. 1,30,258/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the fact that there is no case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business, capital gain and other sources. There was a search action u/s. 132 of the Act on 27-04-2011 in the case of Savvy Group and the assessee also covered in this search action. Consequently, notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued on 22-09-2011. In response, the assessee filed his Return of Income on 05-11-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 8,23,980/- and agricultural income of Rs. 3,70,242/-. 3.1. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tisfactory reason for non-submission of the details during the assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings or penalty proceeding. In view of these facts, I hold that the appellant' case does not fall under any of the exception provided in sub-rule (1) of rule 46A and also that the appellant has not furnished any reply/reason for admission of additional evidence. Therefore, additional evidence related to deduction u/s.54B of the Act filed by the appellant before this office, is not admitted." 6. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The order passed by AO and confirmed by CIT (A) is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 2 Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Records for Agriculture produce, investment in new Ag. Lands and Ag. Land is shown in ITR, this shows that the complete particulars were filed before AO, who has not appraised the same and disallowed claim u/s. 54B merely on presumptions. (iii) As the penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings, your appellant further submits that the Ag. Lands sold out were far from Municipal limits of Gandhinagar and the Ag. Land is not a capital asset as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the LTCG on agriculture land sale was not taxable at all, vis-a-versa investment of sale proceeds and claim u/s. 54B was also immaterial. In view of the above facts, explanations, legal provisions and decisions of Hon'ble Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al income from the above lands. 8.3. It is well settled principle of law that merely because exemption on merit was not granted by the Authority, which will not attract penalty provisions. The assessee in the penalty appeal has produced all the relevant documents by way of additional documents, but the same were not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). 8.4. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Intas Pharma Ltd. reported in [2022] 138 taxmann.com 474 (Gujarat) held as follows: "Section 271(1)(c), read with section 32, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty - For concealment of income (Disallowance of claim of depreciation) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee claimed additional depreciation for plant and machinery under section 32(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee had furnished all details of sale and purchase of property - Accordingly, Tribunal deleted penalty - Whether since Tribunal had arrived at factual findings that assessee had neither concealed his income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income, such factual findings could not be interfered with in an appeal under section 260A, thus, impugned order deleting penalty was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 17] [In favour of assessee]" 8.6. The Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. reported in [2021] 132 taxmann.com 42 (Bombay) held as follows: "Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty - For concealment of income (Disallowance of claim, effect of) - Assessee filed return declaring a total income - Asse....