9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1183 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - long term capital gains - assessee did not disclosed the income treating the same as loss - AO made the additions applying section 50C / fair market value - Held that - The assessee has actually sold the property for a total consideration of 29, 43, 996/- but as per circle rates as assessed by the stamp valuation officer the fair market value for the purpose of section 50C of the Act is at 62, 58, 629/-. Subsequently the matter was referred to DVO and DVO estimated the value at 44.97 lakhs and reduced the estimate substantially which comes to the differential amount at 12, 25, 129/- as against the difference estimated by the AO on the basis of circle rates at 29, 86, 753/-. The drastic change in value itself indicates that the entire exercise on the basis of estimated figures. In such circumstances we are of the view that the assessee is not liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. Respectfully following Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Fortune Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (10) TMI 783 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) we delete the penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee.
Issues involved:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for not disclosing capital gains as per stamp duty valuation authority's value in the return of income. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case pertains to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the non-disclosure of capital gains as computed by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on the value adopted by the stamp duty valuation authority for registering the sale deed. The appellant contested the penalty imposed by the AO, arguing that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) due to the difference in the fair market value of the property as per the stamp valuation officer and the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). 2. The appellant's main contention was that the AO was not clear about whether the penalty was for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant relied on a decision by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case to support their argument that the AO's ambiguity regarding the nature of the penalty was not justified. The court emphasized the importance of clarity in penalty proceedings and highlighted that concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are distinct charges. 3. Additionally, the appellant cited a precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a case involving similar facts, where the court ruled in favor of the assessee. The court held that the mere difference in valuation of the property by the stamp valuation officer and the DVO does not automatically warrant a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The court emphasized that the imposition of a penalty should be based on concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, which was lacking in this case. 4. Considering the discrepancies in the valuation of the property and the lack of concrete evidence supporting the imposition of a penalty, the court ruled in favor of the appellant and set aside the penalty imposed by the AO. The court relied on legal precedents and established principles to conclude that the appellant was not liable for the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deleted based on the findings and reasoning presented in the judgment.
|
