Prema Gopal Rao vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

DATE: January 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
S. 271(1)(c): Revised ROI filed after issue of s. 143(2) notice amounts to voluntary disclosure if AO has not sought specific particulars in the notice

Even though the assessed filed the revised return of income after the receipt of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, yet the admitted fact remains that the assessing officer did not seek any type of particulars in that notice. Hence the mistake in the Long term Capital gain could not have come to the notice of the AO at that point of time, meaning thereby, it should be construed that the assessee has declared the higher amount of Long term capital gain voluntarily upon its detection. Hence, we are unable to agree with the view of the tax authorities that the revised return of income was not voluntary one, but the assessee was constrained to enhance the Long term capital gain only upon the receipt of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied (ACIT Vs. Ashok Raj Nath (2013)(33 588 followed)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *