Late Batul Mohsin Roowala Versus ACIT, Mumbai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee filed a return of income on 31/7/2012 for the Assessment Year 2012-13, which was not scrutinized and was later reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was found that the assessee held a property with a 7.41% share, which was sold for Rs. 981,470,813. However, the assessee disclosed the share at 7.14%, resulting in a lower long-term capital gain of Rs. 70,070,266/- instead of Rs. 72,726,987/-. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, which was confirmed by the CIT-A. The assessee, represented by the legal heir, appealed against the penalty order.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the penalty levied under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Sanjeev Kumar vs. Central Circle-14

  Delhi bench

• Sapra Iron Store vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench 'C', Delhi benchAY 2012-13 & 2013-14Allowed

• Shree Krishna Vanaspati Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-23(3), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench ‘G’ benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• M/s Vijay Jewellers vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

  Mumbai bench

• M/s Jewel India Jewellers vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2014-2015Allowed

• Mrs.Pratibha Ashokumar Godha Vs The ITO, Ward-1

  Ahmedabad bench