TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly held the assessee to have concealed as well as furnished inaccurate particulars her taxable income inviting section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 10,19,700/- levied in the Assessing Officer's order dated 06.10.2021 and upheld in the CIT(A)'s lower appellate discussion as under: "4. I have perused the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act passed on 06.10.2021. I have considered the material available on record. In the present appeal, the appellant has raised two grounds of appeal which have been reproduced in para 2.1 above. Ground Nos. 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2, 2.1 and 2.2 are related to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and all are dealt with together in the following paragraphs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant preferred appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the order of the CIT(A). The appellant took an additional ground before the Hon'ble ITAT as follows: - "that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in low, the AO/CIT(A) erred in not holding that the amount received on re-alignment of shareholding pursuant to family settlement arrangement was not liable to capital gains tax under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 4.3 This additional ground was admitted by the Hon'ble ITAT and vide its order dated 29.02.20l6, the case was remanded back to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication as per law. Following the direction of the Hon'ble ITAT, fresh assessment was made by the Assessing Officer vide order u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed along with assessment order. On receipt of the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, a show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 12.06.2021 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the appellant. In response, the appellant did not furnish any reply. 4.7 Further, Assessing Officer held that the appellant had concealed particulars of income of Rs. 45,00,000/- by stating that money was given to her for equalization of interests in family property and thus was 'owelty'. However, after due consideration of the assessment order and appellate orders, Assessing Officer observed that the appellant had concealed particulars of income of Rs. 45,00,000/- which was received by her as sale consideration of her assets (shares) which was acquire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ily Settlement Deed. The assessee did not have any antecedent, title of any family property because whatever shares/asset assessee has possessed as owner have been sold Subject to consideration because the assessee has acquired the shares of two Companies by way of gift from her father and sons. Thus, it was not a family property which could have been divided between the assessee and Shri Golu L. Mirchandani. The assessee did not receive any share from the family of her husband The facts also clearly established that there is no equitable partition or distribution of family shares/ assets. The chart reproduced above shows that it was merely sale transaction of shares which could not be considered as Family Settlement. Thus, it cannot be sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Owelty for equalization of interest in the family property. Since shares were the personal property of the assessee, therefore, when same were transferred to Shri Gol L. Mirchandani, it would amount to sale. It is an admitted fact that assessee initially admitted the transactions to be sale and purchase transaction subject to consideration. The assessee was not able to prove by any evidence to justify retraction from the earlier admission on disclosing the sale transaction in the original return of income disclosing capital gains. However, the assessee by claiming now it to be Family Settlement tried to defraud the Revenue to reduce the taxable returned income. As regards the amount of Rs. 45 lakhs, it may be noted that assessee has recei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liberately not offered the same for taxation in the name of family settlement. As already mentioned by erstwhile CITI(A)-24, New Delhi that "The appellant is an intelligent and well to do person who is duly assisted by counsel in filing her return of income. She cannot claim ignorance of law being a well to do citizen capable of having best counsels." Considering also this fact, it is difficult to believe that appellant has determined its total taxable income without due application of mind. There is no justification with the appellant for not including this amount in her taxable income. 4.10 Even after two rounds of verification by the Assessing Officer, appellant could not file any justification or documentary evidence in support of her....