TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for AY 2016-17 on 14.10.2016 declaring taxable income of Rs. 10,82,190/-. The A.O received information from DDIT(Investigation) that the assessee has not offered the income from sale of plots co-owned by him along with two others. The A.O therefore issued a notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act and passed an order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. The A.O reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act filed the return of income on 27.04.2023 offering an income of Rs. 93,19,140/- after including the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of plots to the tune of Rs. 82,36,957/-. The A.O completed the assessment u/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2002] 123 Taxman 1052 (MP), where it has been held that: "5. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. It is well-settled that under section 271(1)(e), the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The harden shifts to the assessor only if he fails is offer any explanation for the undisclosed income or offers an explanation which is found to be false by the assessing authority. However, the proviso to Explanation / provides for shifting of this burden again where the explanation offered by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l [2000] 241 ITR 124 (MP) 13-14 4. Meera Anirudha Mirgunde v ITO, Ward - 6(1) - ITA No.550/Pun/2023 15-18 5. Archana Achyut Sail v ITO, Ward -42(2)(1) - ITA Nos.5277 & 5278/Mum/2024 19-23 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, submitted that the decision relied on is factually distinguishable since the assessee voluntarily offered the income to buy peace in the said case. The ld. DR further submitted that in the present case the assessee offered the LTCG only in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act but for which the LTCG would not have been offered by the assessee. The Ld. DR accordingly argued that the levy of penalty for concealment of income is correctly levied in the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed." 7. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by him. Now the question before us is whether the additional income of LTCG offered by the assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 would amount to concealment of income. The argument of the revenue is that but for the initiation of reassessment the assessee would not have offered the LTCG to tax and therefore there is concealment. In our considered view, the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the AO has completed the assessment based on the return filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 where the assessee has offered the LTCG and that the AO has accepted the income returned in the said return. It is relevant to mention here that the AO in assessment order has recorded a specific finding that the assessee has....