9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1909 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition made u/s 50C - HELD THAT - A.O. did not bring any positive evidence on record to show that assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars. The valuation of the Stamp Valuation Authority is not a conclusive evidence of receipt of the money by assessee over and above what is recorded in the sale deed. A.O. has not brought any concrete evidence of concealment of income in the order. A.O. at the stage of assessment simply applied the deeming provisions of Section 50C without bringing any evidence on record for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee. In the absence of any positive evidence with respect to concealment of income there were no justification for the A.O. to levy penalty in the matter. In the case of CIT vs. Madan Teatres Ltd. 2013 (6) TMI 96 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT on identical facts dismissed the departmental appeal in which it was held as where assessee had offered actual amount received on sale of property for taxation revenue authorities were not justified in passing penalty order under section 271(1)(c) by adopting higher sale consideration under section 50C on basis of stamp duty valuation of said property. No interference is called for in the matter. - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act due to addition made under section 50C of the I.T. Act. Analysis: The case involved the Revenue appealing against the cancellation of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act by the Ld. CIT(A)-10, New Delhi, for the A.Y. 2010-2011. The dispute arose from the addition made under section 50C of the I.T. Act concerning the sale of an industrial plot. The assessee declared short-term capital gain but the Assessing Officer (A.O.) added an amount under section 50C due to a difference in the sale consideration and stamp duty valuation. The A.O. also levied a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act based on this addition. The assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that the A.O. had applied deeming provisions of Section 50C without concrete evidence of actual fair market value. The assessee argued that all material facts were disclosed, citing a decision by the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court. The Ld. CIT(A) agreed, stating that the addition under Section 50C did not imply inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, as it was based on deeming provisions without proof of actual receipt of additional money. The penalty was canceled due to the absence of evidence of concealment. The Revenue, represented by the Ld. D.R., relied on a decision by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to support the penalty imposition under section 50C. However, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the earlier arguments and the Kolkata High Court decision. The Tribunal, comprising Shri Bhavnesh Saini and Shri L.P. Sahu, found no merit in the Revenue's appeal. It noted that the assessee had disclosed all relevant sale details, and the A.O. had not provided concrete evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal referenced the Kolkata High Court decision, emphasizing that penalty imposition was unjustified when the actual sale amount was declared for taxation. As no positive evidence of concealment existed, the A.O. had no grounds for penalty imposition. The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal, upholding the cancellation of the penalty. In conclusion, the appeal of the Department was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced in open court.
|
