AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax Department (AO) passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 11.03.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the ld.CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 39,46,200/- on the following concise grounds of appeal: - "1. Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 39,46,200/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) by AO on 08.01.2022. 2. Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty without appreciating the peculiar facts of this case. Appellant having lost the capital gains account passbook, lost sight of the time limit prescribed under section 54(2). 3. Bonafide of the appellant is proved by the fact that unutilised portion o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee in his reply insisted that he has already filed his return of income earlier and mentioned about covid related problems. Further, as per the request of the assessee, his earlier return was replicated and treated as return in response to notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. All statutory notices were issued calling for details and information on the issue but the assessee remained non-compliant during the assessment proceedings. Subsequently, a show cause notice along with draft order was issued to which also the assessee failed to respond. Thereafter, the AO passed the assessment order dated 07.09.2021 assessing total income at Rs. 2,05,30,930/-. In doing so, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,74,14,620/- (Rs.2,50,00,000 less Rs. 75,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing therefrom, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 54EC of the Act to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs and had deposited a sum of Rs. 2.50 crores in the Capital Gains Account Scheme within the due date prescribed for filing the return of income, thereby complying with the requirements of section 54(2) of the Act. 9. It was submitted that the assessee had intended to utilize the said amount for acquisition of residential property. However, due to disputes with the builder, only one flat (Flat No. C-102) was ultimately allotted and registered on 31.03.2014, for which a sum of Rs. 1,19,27,424/- was utilized and a balance of Rs. 1,30,72,576/- unutilised in the Capital Gains Account. 10. The ld.AR submitted that, in terms of the provisions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was purchased from the builder to whom he had sold the entire land. He had originally planned to buy two flats adjacent to each other and combine the same as one flat. Due to certain disputes with the builder, he had not been allotted two flats and only one flat was allotted (Flat No. C 102). The sale deed for the said flat was executed on 31.03.2014. He has spent a sum of Rs. 1,19,27,424/- for the said flat. The unutilized portion is Rs. 1,30,72,576/-. 5.As the amount was not utilized in full, as per the provisio to section 54, the amount not utilized shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous in which the period of 3 years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expire. 6. The 3 year fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Gains Account Scheme at all relevant times. The non-payment of tax within the stipulated time was not on account of any intention to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars, but was due to practical constraints in accessing the funds without appropriate authorization. 14. The ld.AR further submitted that, upon necessary authorization, the assessee withdrew the amount and discharged the tax liability. It was therefore contended that the essential ingredients for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, namely concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, are absent in the present case. 15. In view of the above, the ld. AR prayed that the penalty levied and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 16. Per c....