2014 (3) TMI 179 - AT - Income Tax

Deletion of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act Valuation u/s 50C of the Act Inaccurate particulars furnished for income of LTCG Held that - The assessee has duly disclosed not only the consideration actually received by her but also the fact of applicability of section 50C has also taken stand on the same in her return of income itself - It was a very transparent and fair way of making a claim - The mere fact that the claim has not been found to be acceptable does not negate the fact that the assessee had a reasonable explanation for capital gain declared by her and that the conduct of the assessee cannot be faulted the original property was destroyed much before the valuation carried out, the valuation as per DVO s report is essentially estimate based on too many presumptions - it is one of the rare cases wherein even working of section 50C cannot really be effective at all inasmuch as the very asset, which was required to be valued by DVO, was demolished before valuation could take place it is not a fit case of penalty as there was no good ground to reject assessee s explanation thus, the order of the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to correctness of orders deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2003-04.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessment Proceedings and Valuation Discrepancy:
During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) noted a property sale discrepancy where the circle rate was higher than the actual sale price. The A.O. referred the matter to the Valuation Officer, who declined to value the property due to demolition. The A.O. adopted the circle rate as the full value of consideration under section 50C.

2. Tribunal's Directions for Revaluation:
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the A.O., directing a revaluation of the property. The A.O. was instructed to obtain necessary documents for valuation, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case.

3. Penalty Imposition and CIT(A) Decision:
The A.O. imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate income particulars. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, stating that the assessee had disclosed the valuation difference and complied with section 50C. The CIT(A) found no concealment of particulars and cited legal precedents supporting the deletion of the penalty.

4. Appellate Tribunal Decision:
The A.O. appealed the CIT(A)'s decision. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the assessee's transparent disclosure and reasonable explanation for the valuation discrepancy. The Tribunal noted the unique circumstances where the property was demolished before valuation, making section 50C ineffective. The Tribunal found no grounds for penalty imposition and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal affirmed the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A), considering the transparent disclosure and reasonable conduct of the assessee in a situation where valuation challenges arose due to property demolition.