2022 (7) TMI 1305 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - LTCG Computation - adoption of adopt the fair market value cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 - HELD THAT - Addition in the assessment was based on mere estimation basis as estimated by different authorities at different times rates. It is settled position in law that addition based on estimation no penalty is leviable. As the estimation of valuation are not final and may differ on the subjective satisfaction of different authorities. Therefore, we are of the constrained view that in such estimation of valuation no penalty is leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Even otherwise the addition of LTCG in the assessment order is based on the difference of opinion, which cannot be made basis of the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the remaining / entire penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2012-13.
- Violation of principles of natural justice in confirming the penalty.
- Discrepancy in fair market value of land leading to penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee contended that the National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the penalty, and the order violated principles of natural justice as detailed submissions were not considered.

2. The case involved the assessee declaring "nil" income as an agriculturist for the assessment year 2012-13. Scrutiny assessment led to the addition of long term capital gain (LTCG) based on the sale of land. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) due to discrepancies in the valuation of the land. The penalty was levied at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.

3. The appeal was transferred to the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which partially granted relief to the assessee by considering the fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981. The assessee further appealed to the Tribunal against the penalty imposition.

4. The assessee submitted written arguments, emphasizing the varying fair market values adopted by different authorities and the debatable nature of the issue. The penalty was reduced based on the Tribunal's direction to adopt a specific fair market value per square meter.

5. The Tribunal noted the differing valuations used in the assessment and subsequent appeals. It concluded that penalties based on estimations are not leviable, especially when different authorities arrive at varying valuations. The Tribunal also highlighted that penalties cannot be imposed based on differences of opinion.

6. The Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative supported the CIT(A)'s order, but the Tribunal independently assessed the case. It found that the addition in the assessment was based on estimations and differing opinions, making it unsuitable for penalty imposition.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the remaining or entire penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This decision was based on the unsettled nature of the valuation issue and the principle of treating the assessee similarly to her co-owner in penalty matters.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the lack of finality in valuation estimations and the inappropriateness of penalties based on differences of opinion.