2025 (7) TMI 1844

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2.2020 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the Act. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 10,34,167 in respect of addition of Rs. 50,21,520 made in the asst. order w/s 143(3) r.w.s.254 towards long term capital gains on transfer of immovable property on the ground that the appellant had concealed the particulars of his income without appreciating that the levy of penalty was not justified on facts and in law. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 12.02.2020 is barred by limitation u/s 275(1A) since the same was passed after the period of six months from end of March 2019 i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....Y.2003-04, then no taxable capital gains would have arose as per the computation prepared by the erstwhile tax consultant and therefore, merely because the appellant had accepted the taxability of the same in his hands in A.Y.2011-12, there was no reason to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) when the action of the dept. in assessing the said LTCG in A.Y.2011-12 itself was a highly debatable issue. 6] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the total addition of long term capital gains of Rs. 50,21,520 was worked out on the basis of estimation and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of such addition made on estimation basis was not justified in law. 7] The appellant craves leave to add/alter/ amend an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndate of second proviso and further going by the first proviso to section 50C(1), the stamp value for the purpose of computation of capital gain at the time of sale in the year 2010 should be considered with reference to the date of agreement, namely, 31/05/2002, We order accordingly." 6. In compliance to the above directions given by the Tribunal, ld. Assessing Officer again carried out the proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.254 of the Act and revised the total income at Rs. 51,80,232/-. The addition made by the Assessing Officer has been accepted by the assessee but thereafter penalty proceedings have been initiated and impugned penalty has been levied on the assessee for not disclosing income in the income tax return. 7. Before us, ld. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent-In such cases, the year of chargeability is the year in which the contract is executed-Once under cl. 8 of the agreement a limited power of attorney is intended to be given to the developer to deal with the property, then the date of the contract viz. 18th Aug., 1994, would be the relevant date to decide the date of transfer under s. 2(47)(v) and, in which event, the question of substantial performance of the contract thereafter does not arise- Tribunal was not therefore justified in concluding that the appellant had transferred the property during the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1996-97." 8. Now on examining the facts of the case in light of the above judgment, we find that if the transaction has been offered to tax during A....