Friday, 7 September 2012

S. 18(1)(c) of W. T. Act requires "clear cut" finding of concealment. If AO has not invoked Explanation 4 to s. 18(1)(c), CIT(A) cannot do so


Penalty proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and the Revenue must be put to strict compliance of the legal requirements. The AO erred in imposing penalty without clear findings as to whether there was concealment of particulars of any assets or providing of inaccurate particulars of any assets. The CIT(A) was wrong in invoking Explanation(4) to s. 18(1)(c) which provides that if the net wealth returned is was less than 70% of the assessed wealth, there is a presumption of concealment. As the AO had not invoked the Explanation, the CIT(A) could not have relied on it to confirm the penalty

 Ramanbhai B. Patel (HUF) vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

No comments:

Mere execution of JDA with developer does not trigger capital gains tax in real estate transactions

  Recently Bangalore ITAT recently delivered an important ruling clarifying that merely executing a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) does n...