2017 (3) TMI 664 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition being difference between the sale consideration as per sale agreement and the valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority - AY 2006-07 - Held that - It is evident from the assessment order that the AO has not questioned the actual consideration received by the assessee provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO has not given any finding that the actual sale consideration is more than the sale consideration admitted and mentioned in the income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also not the case of the revenue that the assessee has failed to furnish the relevant record as called by the AO to disclose the primary facts. The assessee has furnished all the relevant facts, documents/ material including the sale agreement and the AO has not doubted the genuineness and validity of the documents produced before him and the sale consideration received by the assessee. Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee has not furnished correct particulars of income. Merely because the assessee agreed for addition on the basis of valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority would not be a conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per this agreement was incorrect and wrong - Hence the addition because of the deeming provisions does not ipso facto attract the penalty u/s 271(1) (c ). See Renu Hingorani Versus ACIT, Range, 19(3), Mumbai. 2010 (12) TMI 795 - ITAT MUMBAI - The appeal of the assessee is allowed. For AY 2007-08 find considerable cogency in the submissions of the assessee s counsel that the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(b) is liable to be quashed/ annulled, because the charge was not specific in the Notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271, in which AO has simply placed tick mark against the printed line you have without reasonable failed to comply with a notice u/s. 23(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or u/s. 142(1)/143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated . Hence, the penalty in dispute deserves to be deleted. Even otherwise , find that non-compliance was not intentional, because the assessee s father (who used to look after the matters relating to income tax and follow up with the professional) was terminally ill due to cancer during such period and he ultimately died on 30.5.2015. In view of the above facts and circumstances, hereby delete the penalty in dispute. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty order under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) for assessment year 2007-08.

Analysis:
1. Appeal No. 5851/Del/16 (AY 2007-08) - Penalty under section 271(1)(c):
The Assessee challenged the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) on various grounds, including denial of natural justice, lack of specificity in the charge, and application of deeming provision sec. 50C. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings based on a notice that did not specifically mention Explanation-1 of sec. 271(1)(c). The Assessee contended that the penalty was not sustainable due to the lack of a specific charge. The Commissioner (CIT(A)) confirmed the penalty, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal referred to a similar case precedent and held that the penalty was not justified, as the Assessee had provided all relevant details and the AO did not question the actual consideration received, thus deleting the penalty.

2. Appeal No. 5852/Del/16 (AY 2007-08) - Penalty under section 271(1)(b):
In this appeal, the Assessee challenged the penalty order under section 271(1)(b) on grounds of lack of specificity in the charge and unintentional non-compliance due to the Assessee's father's illness. The AO's notice did not specifically mention the non-compliance date, and the Assessee's father's illness was cited as a reason for unintentional non-compliance. The Tribunal found merit in the Assessee's arguments, noting the lack of specificity in the charge and the extenuating circumstances of the father's illness, leading to the deletion of the penalty.

In conclusion, both appeals were allowed by the Tribunal, citing lack of specificity in the charges and the extenuating circumstances of the Assessee's father's illness as reasons for deleting the penalties imposed under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) for the assessment year 2007-08.