9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT (A). - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 898/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 11-9-2015 - SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM For The Revenue : Shri Ajay Malik (JCIT) For The Assessee : Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate) ORDER PER SHRI T.R. MEENA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue emanating from the order of ld. CIT (A), Central, Jaipur dated 07.10.2013 for the A.Y. 2006-07. The grounds raised in the appeal are as under :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT (Appeals)(C), Jaipur has erred in deleting the penalty of ₹ 10,94,116/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) as there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove that the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,460/- (17,72,460 + 6,36,000). 2.1. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) had been initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income resulting in concealment of income. The AO gave show cause notice on 25.05.2011 to the assessee before imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) as the addition has been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). The assessee also replied before the AO which has been reproduced by the AO at page 3 of the penalty order. The submissions made by the assessee have been considered but found legally untenable. All the objections raised by the assessee has already been dealt by the ld. CIT (A) and elaborately discussing the same has sustained the addition. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/-. iii) The matter came up for adjudication before Hon. ITAT in the case of other share holder namely Smt. Jaimala Agarwal. Hon. ITAT by its order ITA No. 465/JP/2011 for A.Y. 2006-07 gave a finding in favour of the assessee by its order dated 2.2.2012. The Hon. ITAT granted relief in the case of Jaimala Agarwal vide its order supra while making the following observations : 4. After considering the orders of the authorities below and the submissions of the assessee, we find that the addition made by AO which is confirmed by ld. CIT (A) has no leg to stand. Assessee has sold the shares of a company and not the land of that company. Therefore, by taking into consideration of the land value owned by that company making any addition i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se balance sheets it is seen that the company Unique Propcon Pvt. Ltd. had been showing this property as its asset in the balance sheet. Therefore, the addition u/s 50C in the hands of the company or the share holders would not merit imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unless the AO brings on record specific evidence of money having been received by the share holders or the company over and above the transfer price of the land. In absence of any such evidence the addition made by invoking the deeming provisions under sec. 50C would not be liable for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as per the finding of the Hon. ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Renu Hingorani vs. ACIT, ITA No. 2210/MUM/2010 for A.Ys. 2006-07 and 22.12.2010. In view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
