Case Law Details
Ginjala Atchiraju Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that mere estimate of cost by Departmental Valuer could not constitute material to concealment and therefore levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not valid.
Facts- A survey operation u/s. 133A of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee. During the course of the survey operations, it was noticed that Sri Ginjala Simhadri Raju along with his daughter sold land and buildings. However, the assessee filed a return of income by admitting business income of Rs. 3,18,120/- and capital gains at Rs. NIL.
The assessee during the course of the survey operations submitted that he has erroneously considered the sale consideration and the cost of acquisition and hence correct long-term capital gains could not be admitted in his return of income.
AO observed that the income chargeable to tax has escaped income and the case was reopened u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act by issuing a notice which was served on the assessee. Since there was no response from the assessee, the Ld. AO completed the assessment based on the material available on record.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
