Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) w.r.t capital gain not disclosed in the Income Tax Return

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
‘’ SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD
(CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD)
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT
And
SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 1623/AHD/2019

Asstt. Year: 2009-10

Ms Varsha Jitendra Tekwani,
Flat No.302,
Jay Ranchod avenue,
Harni-Varasiya Ring Road,
Vadodara.
PAN: AFNPT8436R

VS

Income-Tax Officer,
Ward-3(1)(4),
Vadodara.

Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.D.R

Date of Hearing : 11/11/2021

Date of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021

O R D E R

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Vadodara, dated 21/08/2019 arising in the matter of penalty order passed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2009-10.

2. When the matter was called for hearing it was noticed that there was none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the fact that the notice intimating the date of hearing was sent to the address of the assessee which was duly served. It is the trite law that assessee after filing the appeal should be vigilant enough to follow up the same. But, we find that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed by it. In the absence of any co-operation from the side of the assessee, we don’t find any reason to keep the matter pending before us. Accordingly, we decide to proceed to adjudicate the appeal after hearing the learner DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue.

3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and filed her return of income declaring an income of Rs. 1,82,320.00. There was a piece of land which was jointly held by the assessee along with 3 co-owners. Such land was sold by the assessee along with the co-owners for a sum of ₹ 56 Lacs which was valued for the purpose of Stamp duty at ₹ 58,55,000/-. The assessee on the sale of such land has not disclosed any income under the head capital gain in her return of income. Thus the AO, during the assessment proceedings made an addition of ₹ 14,10,039/- on account of long-term capital gain on the sale of property. The view taken by the AO was subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT (A) who has worked out the long-term capital gain at ₹ 9,52,775/-.

4. Generally, the rate of the land increases year after year. Thus, the value of the property in dispute, acquired in the year 1977, should have increased as on 1 April 1981 which should have been taken as the cost of acquisition. Thus, no prudent assessee will take the cost of requisition as applicable for the year 1977 when the property was acquired until and unless the facts and circumstances suggest otherwise. But nothing is available on record, neither the revenue has carried out any exercise to find out the actual value of the property as on 1st April 1981. Thus, the revenue is not expected to derive any benefit out of the ignorance of the
assessee.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 20/12/2021 at Ahmedabad.

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement