Case Law Details
Moola Padmaja Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
ITAT Hyderabad held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income tax Act cannot be cancelled merely because of non-specification of limb i.e., for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particular of income under which penalty is levied.
Facts- The assessee is an individual and co-owner of a parcel of land admeasuring acres 6.08 guntas. The assessee along with other co-owners entered into a land development agreement with M/s. Western Constructions on 03.05.2007. As per the supplementary development agreement dated 26.03.2010 the landlords were supposed to get 40% of the total built up area of 10,35,565/- sq.ft. Accordingly, capital gains will arise in the hands of the assessee on sale of individual flats.
A search and survey operation u/s. 132 of I.T.Act was conducted in the group case of Sri Arakula Vinod and others on 09.05.2018. AO on perusal of the records and returns of income, noted that assessee failed to file his return of income for the AY 2012-13 admitting the income under the head capital gains as accrued in his hands relevant to AY 2012-13. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 for the AY 2012-13 was issued on 26.03.2019. In response to the notice the assessee filed return of income on 03.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.1,84,41,140/-.
AO issued statutory notices u/s. 143(3) and 142(1) of the Act to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the AO from time to time and filed the requisite details. The AO thereafter completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act on 09.12.2019 accepting the returned income of Rs.1,84,41,136/-.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
