9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticulars have been furnished by the Respondent-Assessee in respect of the sale of its property at Kalol. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal by following the Apex Court's decision in Reliance Petro Products (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ), cannot be faulted with, as it is a settled position. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1719 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2015 - M. S. Sanklecha And N. M. Jamdar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Suresh Kumar For the Respondents : Mr Niraj Sheth with Mr Poojari i/b Mint Confreres ORDER P. C. This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 20th March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted out that as depreciation was being taken on the payment at Kalol, they were of the view that it would be covered by Section 50 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation offered and held that the Respondent had filed return of income with inaccurate particulars, thus warranting a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In appeal, the CIT(A) cancelled the penalty imposed under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, inter alia, holding that all particulars with regard to the sale of the property at Kalol were furnished along with return of income including the stamped agreement for sale. Thus in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v/s. Reliance Petro Products Private Ltd., 322 ITR 158 penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 50C of the Act would have no application. This was a view taken at the time filing the return of income. 8. We find that in the present case, the Respondent-Assessee has made a complete disclosure inasmuch as the higher stamp duty valuation was indicated in the agreement filed along with the Return of Income. Thus, it is not a case of submitting/ furnishing inaccurate particulars. In view of the above, both CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have come to concurrent findings of fact that no inaccurate particulars have been furnished by the Respondent-Assessee in respect of the sale of its property at Kalol. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal by following the Apex Court's decision in Reliance Petro Products (supra), can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
