9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, income from capital gains and income from other sources. For the assessment year 2005-2006, the assessee filed his return of income on 27-10-2005 declaring total income at ₹ 3,30,320/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The assessee in his computation of income submitted along with the return of income, has shown his share in sale of T.V.Industrial Estate at ₹ 16,42,750/-. The aforesaid property was sold for ₹ 25 lakhs wherein assessee s share was 67%. However, as per registration papers the market value adopted by Sub-Registrar for the said property was ₹ 30,83,930/- as against the sale consideration of ₹ 25 lakhs. According to Assessing Officer, the assessee ought to have adopted the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing difference between the sale consideration as per sale agreement and the valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The said addition was made by the Assessing Officer by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act. On the above difference, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of ₹ 19818/- under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the penalty and the assessee preferred an appeal against the Order of CIT(A) before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its Order dated 22-12-2010 cancelled the penalty, observing as under : 8. We have considered the rival contentions and relevant record . We find that the AO had made addition of ₹ 9,00,824/- being difference between the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attract the penalty u/s 271( 1) (c). Hence in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Petro products Pvt.Ltd (supra), the penalty levied u/s 271( 1)( c ) is not sustainable. The same is deleted. 5. In the instant case also the Assessing Officer levied the penalty on the amount of difference between the sale consideration shown by the assessee and the valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the case of Renu Hingorani (supra). Respectfully following the Order of the Tribunal in the case of Renu Hingorani (supra), we cancel the penalty of ₹ 86,930/- levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). 6. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
