2016 (3) TMI 359 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - calculation of sale consideration - assessee is the sole owner of the property and has received the full consideration of the property, and therefore liable to be taxed as capital gain under section 50C - Held that - As gone through the judgments in the matter of Renu Hingorani vs. ACIT 2010 (12) TMI 795 - ITAT MUMBAI and CIT vs. Madan Theatres Ltd. 2013 (6) TMI 96 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT . On perusal of the case law mentioned in the order of ld. CIT (A), it is clear that the income has been calculated on the basis of deeming provision by the authorities below. However, the said income as calculated on the basis of stamp duty valuation is subjected to debate/correction in case the assessee disputes the valuation made by the stamp duty authority. Since the matter is pending adjudication before the Tax Tribunal whereby the valuation calculated by the stamp valuer is under challenge. Therefore, there is no reason to impose the penalty as there is no concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income furnished in the return. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Computation of long term capital gain under section 50C of the IT Act.
2. Rectification of assessment order under section 155(15) of the IT Act.
3. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.

Issue 1: Computation of long term capital gain under section 50C of the IT Act:
The appellant challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the computation of long term capital gain under section 50C of the IT Act. The AO determined the value of the property at &8377; 1,08,91,151/- based on stamp duty valuation, resulting in a long term capital gain of &8377; 70,69,482/-. The appellant contended that the sale consideration should be taken at &8377; 27,00,000/- as per the sale deed. The CIT (A) directed the AO to consider the sale value at &8377; 27,00,000/- and subsequently, the AO rectified the assessment order under section 155(15) of the IT Act, maintaining the capital gain at &8377; 70,69,482/-. The Appellate Authority upheld the AO's order, stating that the issues regarding quantum had already been decided and could not be reviewed. The appeal against this decision was dismissed.

Issue 2: Rectification of assessment order under section 155(15) of the IT Act:
The AO rectified the assessment order under section 155(15) of the IT Act based on the directions of the CIT (A) to consider the sale value of the property at &8377; 27,00,000/-. The appellant challenged this rectification, arguing that the valuation should not have been finalized before a higher forum's decision. The Appellate Authority rejected this argument, stating that the AO followed the CIT (A)'s directions and that the valuation issue was already referred to the Inspector General (IG) Stamps. The appeal against the rectification was dismissed.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act:
The AO imposed a penalty of &8377; 15,86,809/- under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The appellant contested the penalty, citing that the addition was made based on deeming provisions of section 50C and that there was no concealment of income. The CIT (A) restricted the penalty after considering the appellant's contentions and case laws supporting the argument that the penalty was not sustainable based on stamp duty valuation. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, emphasizing that there was no concealment of income or inaccurate particulars furnished in the return. The appeal against the penalty imposition was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the orders related to the computation of long term capital gain under section 50C, rectification of assessment under section 155(15), and imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The decisions were based on the specific provisions of the IT Act, previous rulings, and the facts presented in the case.