HARSHADBHAI RATILAL PATEL Vs. ITO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an Appeal filed by the Assessee arising from the order of the learned CIT(A) -I, Baroda, dated 05.05.2014 and the only ground is in respect of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 4,62,400/ -.

(2.) FACTS in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 27.12.2012 and the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) dated 29.04.2013 were that the appellant is a salaried employee working as a teacher in B.A. Patel High School, Changa. It was noticed by the AO that an original return was filed on 21.05.2010 declaring an income of Rs. 2,44,446/ -. Thereafter, the assessee has also filed an e -return of income declaring Rs. 22,39,901/ -. As per the said return the assessee had sold immovable property and disclosed Long Term Capital Gain in the said e -return. The admitted factual position was that the assessee had filed two returns, first was manually filed disclosing salary income and the other was e -return disclosing Long Term Capital Gain. The AO has also noted that the return which was manually filed on 21.05.2010 was processed u/s. 143(1) of IT Act. Since, as per the original return the Capital Gain tax was not offered; therefore, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was initiated. While levying the impugned penalty again it was observed by the AO that the assessee has not furnished the particulars in respect of Long Term Capital Gain when the return of income was filed at the first instance therefore, concealed the particulars of income. The AO has levied the impugned penalty on the Capital Gain of Rs. 22,39,901/ - + interest received from bank of Rs. 3,047/ -.

(3.) ON the other hand, from the side of the Revenue, learned Sr. D.R., Dinesh Singh has supported the levy of penalty and pleaded that the assessee has not deposited any advance tax on the Long Term Capital Gain, therefore, his intention was not to disclose the Long Term Capital Gain voluntarily. According to learned Sr. D.R., e -return was filed when the Revenue Department had detected the concealment of Long Term Capital Gain. According to his arguments, filing of e -return was not a voluntary act of the assessee.