2025 (9) TMI 1250

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 declaring total income of Rs. 34,40,070/-. The assessee had disclosed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 35,59,770/- on sale of lands and plots. In the course of assessment, it was found that the assessee had claimed deduction for transfer expense of Rs. 3,25,000/- in respect of sale of land, of which the assessee was only 1/7th owner. The Assessing Officer found that no such expense was claimed by another co-owners on account of cost of improvement or for transfer expense. The assessee had explained that the cost of improvement was for levelling and earth work etc. and the transfer expense was for commissi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the case by upholding the penalty of Rs. 1,38,391/- levied by the learned Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case by upholding the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the Ld. AO without appreciating the fact that the impugned penalty proceedings were initiated under one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, however the penalty was imposed under a different limb while passing the order, thereby rendering the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO as invalid. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO erred in law and fact of the case by levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact there was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and cost of improvement, which was reduced from LTCG. This substantiated that the particulars of income as filed by the assessee were not correct. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly imposed the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. The Assessing Officer had rejected the claim of the assessee merely for the reason that no such expense in respect of improvement and transfer expense was claimed by the other co-owners. The assessee had furnished vouchers for cost of improvement undertaken by him and also furnished the name of person to whom commission was paid. The Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry in this regard and no evidence was brought on record to establish that the m....