9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crued/received by the appellant. It is not the case of the Department that the appellant has received more than the value disclosed as sales consideration and has failed to disclose the same in her return of income. Where the actual sale consideration is less than the stamp duty value and by virtue of a deeming fiction, the latter is deemed by the AO to be the full value of consideration, it cannot be said that the appellant has concealed her income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. All the primary facts have been duly disclosed by the appellant including DM Circle rate and the same have not been disputed. The fact that the assessee agreed to the addition is not conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per agreement was incorrect and wrong. We are therefore of the view that where the actual sale consideration is replaced by the sale consideration determined as per DM circle rate under the deeming provisions of section 50C, the same cannot be basis for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. Adjustment on account of cost of acquisition/improvement - Held that:- cost of acquisition and cost of improvement has been re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, the appellant has claimed interest deduction under section 24(b) of the Income tax Act amounting to ₹ 150,000/- in respect of self-occupied property which was in her joint name along with her husband. The Assessing officer in his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act has reduced the deduction to ₹ 75000/- and thereafter penalty was levied under section 271(1)(C) of the Act. 5. During the course of the hearing, the ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the deduction under section 24(b) of the Act is provided to an assessee where she fulfills the requisite conditions. Further, the ld Counsel has contended that whether she is holding the property individually or jointly with other co-owners is not determinant of the quantum of deduction that will be provided to her. 6. The Ld. DR has placed reliance on the orders of AO and ld. CIT(A). 7. In his penalty order, the AO has mentioned that the assessee has disclosed the particulars but such disclosure is not correct, therefore the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income willingly and knowingly and is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, there is no findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, it appears that one has to compute the income from house property in the hands of the appellant and the determination of annual value as well as the deductions where applicable, are in the hands of the appellant whether such individual is holding the property in her own name or jointly with other co-owner. 13. In the above context, it therefore appears to us that the appellant has taken a plausible view that she was eligible for interest deduction to the extent of ₹ 150,000/-. In our view, where the claim of the appellant is not under dispute and on quantum of deduction, the appellant has taken a plausible view, the AO can differ with the said view by way of disallowing the excess claim but the same cannot be a basis for levy of penalty. In result, the levy of penalty on account of excess claim of interest deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act is deleted. B. Levy of penalty in relation to short computation of long term capital gains 14. During the year under consideration, the appellant has sold commercial property at Belapur and has disclosed long term capital loss amounting to ₹ 12,10,870 under the head Capital Gains in her computation of income. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. On perusal of the paperbook, it is noted that the applicant has disclosed in her computation of income both the figures of actual sale consideration of ₹ 53,59,000 as well as DM circle rate of ₹ 64,36,500. However, while computing the capital gains/loss, the figure of ₹ 53,59,000 has been considered by the appellant. Thus, the primary facts in terms of actual sales consideration as well as value as per DM value were submitted and not disputed by the AO. Further, it is noted from the copies of the submissions filed before the AO (as contained in the paperbook) whereby the appellant has stated that the calculation in the annexed sheet (computation of income) has been made on the basis of value as per DM circle rate. Later on, it is noted from the order of the AO that the appellant has not disputed the adoption of stamp duty valuation and conceded the same before the AO. Further, no appeal apparently has been filed against the order of the AO. It is also noted that in either case where AO considers sale consideration at ₹ 53,59,000 or ₹ 64,36,500, and where the cost of acquisition and improvement is taken as per the appellant, the resultant figure afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order that the AO has not questioned the actual consideration received by the assessee but the addition is made purely on the basis of deeming provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO has not given any finding that the actual sale consideration is more than the sale consideration admitted and mentioned in the sale agreement. Thus it does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also not the case of the revenue that the assessee has failed to furnish the relevant record as called by the AO to disclose the primary facts. The assessee has furnished all the relevant facts, documents/material including the sale agreement and the AO has not doubted the genuineness and validity of the documents produced before him and the sale consideration received by the assessee. Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee has not furnished correct particulars of income. Merely because the assessee agreed for addition on the basis of valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority would not be a conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per this agreement was incorrect and wrong. Accordingly the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
