The assessee sold immovable properties consisting of land, building and tea factory. Contention that sale was slum sale was not accepted by the AO. Addition is confirmed and penalty was also levied.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. On appeal the Tribunal held that the assessee failed to rebut the factual position on the basis of which the addition was made, the levy of penalty under S. 271(1)(c) was justified. As regards the contention of the assessee that in the show-cause notice, the AO had not struck off the relevant limb had no relevance since the assessee had filed an explanation in response to the notice, which meant that the assessee had understood the show-cause notice. (AY.2013-14)
Muthukumaran Rangarajan v. ITO (2020) 77 ITR 421/ 185 ITR 365 / 192 DTR 263/ 206 TTJ 746 (Chennai) (Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Sale of fixed asset-Slump sale-Amount not offered as income-Levy of penalty is justified-Not striking off relevant limb of notice–Reply filed in response to notice –Presumption is that the assessee has understood the notice. [S. 50B, 50C, 274]