TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in confirming the penalty levied of Rs. 5,25,923/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act by dismissing the appeal. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in confirming the penalty levied of Rs. 5,25,923/- although there has been neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income." 3. The brief facts of the case are tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sought to be evaded, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 5. Aggrieved by the penalty order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), first appellate authority. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming excess exemption under section 54 and had failed to suo motu disclose the resultant shortfall until the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAK Data (P.) Ltd., the Ld. CIT(A) observed that any disclosure made after the issuance of a scrutiny notice cannot be regarded as voluntary. According to him, the disclosure of the shortfall was made only after the discrepancy came to light during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the prescribed period of three years, the amount remaining unutilised shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the said period of three years expires. 8. Strictly speaking, the aforesaid proviso applies only to amounts deposited in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme. In the present case, the assessee deposited only Rs. 10,00,000/- in the capital gains accounts scheme but substantial amount was invested with M/s Damodar Suruchi Developers and, owing to the stalling of the project, was subsequently utilised for the purchase of another residential property at a lower consideration. Therefore, the proviso is not fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Nevertheless, the underlying legislative i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In our considered opinion, the aforesaid shortfall could not have been subjected to tax in A.Y. 2014-15. At the time of filing the original return, the assessee was still within the statutory period available for making the investment under section 54. Furthermore, by the time it became apparent that the entire proposed investment would not materialise, the time limit prescribed for filing a revised return under section 139(5) had already expired, whereas the statutory period of three years available for making the investment had not. Therefore, the assessee could not have revised the return to offer the shortfall to tax in A.Y. 2014-15. Accordingly, the unutilised amount could become taxable only in the assessment year in which the statuto....