Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 793 - ITAT MUMBAILevy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - capital gain computation - difference in cost of acquisition adopted - AO did not accepted the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 as adopted by the assessee and relied on the “Indian Valuers Directory & Reference Book”, to incorporate the market value of the property of Mumbai as on 01.04.1981 - Held that:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff vs. JCIT [2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME Court ] on the issue of capital gain on the basis of the valuer’s report, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, the penalty was deleted Also the assessee has disclosed all the particulars and nothing was concealed by the assessee and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] has clearly concluded that in case there is no concealment on facts or particulars, it cannot be a fit case for levy of penalty of income for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case also the disputed penalty is levied only because the opinion of registered valuer is not accepted or some other expert gives another opinion, is not by itself sufficient for arriving at a conclusion that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income attracting penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Assessee has chosen to obtain the opinion of a registered valuer and the registered valuer has arrived at his opinion on certain basis. While he making the valuation report, disclosed all particulars. There can be a genuine difference of opinion of different expert and hence, once there is difference of opinion, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied - Decided in favour of assessee.
|