Case Law Details
Sri Sachindra Nath Kayal Vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
It undisputed fact that assessee has earned LTCG which was not offered to tax. It is also undisputed that the disclosure of the same made in balance-sheet of the assessee. Thus, we note that non- offering of LTCG to the tax was not deliberate. It was out of ignorance of assessee. In such circumstances, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Honorable Rajasthan High Court in the case of Chandrapal Bagga vs. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal on 31.01.2003 Equivalent citations (2003) 182 CTR Raj, 185, 2003 261 ITR 67 Raj
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata dated 09.07.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. Penalty levied by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 30.04.2013.
Shri S.P. Datta, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Saurbh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Pl advise if a person who acquires Short term capital gains by disposing off his old ancestral property, deposits gained amount in Capital Gain Account by way of FDRs, he gave advance to buy another similar property but due to title dispute amongst the sellers he could not acquire said house within 2/3 years, but said income is regularly shown in IT Returns, in such case tax will be from interast or from total income