2017 (2) TMI 1461 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - assessee has suppressed its income by not considering specific provisions of section 50C for computation of capital gains - HELD THAT - Assessee has furnished the registered sale deed. The assessing officer has made the addition by invoking deeming provisions of section 50C. No case has been made out of any incriminating document etc. being found. In such situation assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Further more the conduct of the assessee cannot be held to be contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty. This proposition is also supported by the decision rendered in the case of Hindustan steel Ltd vs state of Orissa 1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Application of deeming provisions of section 50C for computation of capital gains.

Issue 1: Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The case involved an appeal by the revenue against the order of the learned CIT-A regarding the deletion of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant had sold land and adopted the actual sales consideration for computing capital gains. The assessing officer made an addition under section 50C due to the variance between the stamp duty value and the value adopted by the appellant. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, reducing the addition made under section 50C. Subsequently, the assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings, levying a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The CIT-A deleted the penalty, emphasizing that the appellant had provided all relevant documents, and there was no evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CIT-A relied on legal precedents and held that the penalty was unjustified. The Tribunal upheld the CIT-A's decision, citing the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that in cases of additions under section 50C, penalties under section 271(1)(c) are not sustainable. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT-A's order and dismissed the revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Application of deeming provisions of section 50C for computation of capital gains:

The application of deeming provisions under section 50C for the computation of capital gains was a crucial aspect of the case. The assessing officer invoked section 50C due to the variance between the stamp duty value and the value adopted by the appellant for the land sold. The CIT(A) reduced the addition made under section 50C based on the valuation by the Department Valuation Officer. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had furnished the registered sale deed and that the assessing officer had made the addition based on the deeming provisions of section 50C without any incriminating documents being found. The Tribunal held that in such circumstances, the appellant could not be held liable for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing income. Legal precedents and the decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd vs. State of Orissa supported this conclusion. The Tribunal upheld the CIT-A's decision, emphasizing that the appellant's conduct did not warrant the levy of a penalty under section 271(1)(c).

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT-A's decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) and emphasizing that the application of deeming provisions under section 50C did not justify the imposition of penalties for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing income.