TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reinafter referred to as "the AO") under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee before us in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 read as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in this case is bad in law and violation of principle of natural justice, because in light of provisions of the Act, and in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev Bansal (supra), notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 26/07/2022 is barred by limitation period specified und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,01,125 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, being the Assessee's 50 per cent share of the difference between the consideration of Rs 87,00,000 stated in the registered purchase deed dated 03.03.2016 of a house bought jointly with her husband, and its stamp duty value of Rs 1,07,02,250. The AO recorded that the Assessee had furnished the purchase deed, bank statement and details of the payments made. The assessment order was not challenged in appeal. 4. The notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 25.05.2023 stated that the Assessee appeared to have concealed the particulars of her income. In her reply dated 18.10.2023, the Assessee contended that she had paid only Rs 43,50,000 as her share, that the AO h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was beyond the surviving time under Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) and that the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not specified by the AO. The learned Departmental Representative (hereinafter referred to as "the learned DR") supported the orders below and submitted that the deemed income was not offered in the return, that the addition was accepted without appeal, that Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act applies and that the validity of a reassessment which has attained finality cannot be questioned in a penalty appeal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Ground 2 is taken up first. The notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 25....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....share of Rs 43,50,000 or that any particular furnished by her was false. Her explanation has not been found false and all material facts were disclosed. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act is therefore not attracted, as its deeming operates only where the explanation is found false, or is not substantiated and not shown to be bona fide. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) held at paragraph 9 of the judgment that where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in the return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and at paragraph 8 clarified that Dharamen....