Kanti Jaiswal, Kanpur vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.932/LKW/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The tribunal reasons that, on the material before it, an addition to income on account of long term capital gain (computed on a cost of acquisition found to be lower than that claimed by the assessee) stands where the assessee has not established that the mistake in the claimed cost of acquisition was bona fide, and so the penalty under section 271(1)(c) confirmed by the CIT(A) is not to be interfered with.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Smt. Kanti Jaiswal, Vs Dy.C.I.T.-II, 1114, MIG Ratan Lal Nagar, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:ABQPJ7856G (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Pramod Kumar, D.R. Date of hearing 20/02/2015 Date of pronouncement 23/03/2015
ORDER
PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.
This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dated 17/09/2014 for the assessment year 2011-2012.
2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:
"1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts and law to confirm the penalty of Rs.62,595/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the full particulars of income and revised computation was furnished before any enquiry or finding by the learned DCIT."
3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee on the appointed date of hearing in spite of notice and hence, we proceed to decide this appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee.
2 4. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.
5. We have considered the submissions of Learned D.R. of the Revenue, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the addition of Rs.3,12,975/- has been made by Assessing Officer on account of long term capital gain and this addition is on the basis that while calculating the long term capital gain at Rs.26,26,650/-, the assessee has claimed cost of acquisition at Rs.14,73,350/- but on verification, the Assessing Officer found that the cost of acquisition of property was Rs.11,60,375/- and for this reason, the capital gain was computed at Rs.29,39,625/- resulting into addition of Rs.3,12,975/-. This find is also given by CIT(A) that during the penalty proceedings, the bonafide of the mistake has not been established by the assessee. Considering all these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A).
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)
Sd/. Sd/.
(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated:23/03/2015 *C.L.Singh
Copy of the order forwarded to : 1.The Appellant 2.The Respondent. 3.Concerned CIT 4.The CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free