9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur dated 30.08.2013 wherein the Revenue has taken the following ground of appeal: Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of ₹ 28,00,670/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee voluntarily did not disclosed accurate/complete particulars of his income. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold two pieces of land at village Jai Singh Pura. In respect of the first piece of land which was sold for ₹ 23,04,000, the assessee declared a loss of ₹ 1,76,000 and in respect of second piece of land which was sold for ₹ 75,00,000, short term capital gains of ₹ 99,400 was reported in the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was thereafter completed at returned income of ₹ 64,03,650/-. Subsequently, the ld. AO received information in respect to one of the pieces of land that stamp duty authority valued the property at ₹ 65,20,000/- as against the declared sale consideration of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Since the facts of the appellant s case are identical to the above case and AO did not find fault with the agreement of sale and does not have any evidence or receipt of extra consideration therefore it cannot be said that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kshi ITA No. 508/Mad/2008 dated 13.02.2009 (Chennai Bench) The appeal order of ld. CIT(A) is by following various judgements of ITAT and High court and the appeal order is detailed and reasoned which deserves to be upheld. The appeal filed by department has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. 2.4 The ld DR is heard who has submitted that ld CIT(A) has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon ble Mumbai ITAT in case of Renu Hingorani but the facts of the two cases are not identical. In the case of Renu Hingorani, the assessee filed a return and declared sale consideration as received. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO enquired about the difference in sale consideration and the DLC rates and adopted the difference u/s 50C. However, in this case, once proceedings u/s 143(3) was completed and later on the AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 for escapement of income on account of wrong computation of income furnished by the assessee by ignoring the provisions of section 50C. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return and capital gain was computed as per provisions of section 50C. It means the assessee was aware of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee was given show cause as to why the full value of consideration received on transfer should not be adopted as per the stamp duty authorities as per section 50C of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted its return of income disclosing sale consideration as per stamp duty authorities in respect of both of the properties even though the notice was specific to one of the properties which shows bonafide on the part of the assessee. 2.7 Here we refer to the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in case of Madan Theatres P Ltd (supra) where the Hon ble Calcutta High Court refused to admit the appeal of the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal and held as under: 4. Mr Niaumuddin, the learned Advocate appearing for the Revenue contended that the assessee had a choice to dispute the valuation on the basis of the deemed value but the assessee did not take that opportunity. The assessee had a choice or he could have litigated. The fact remains that the actual amount received was offered for taxation. It is only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings under section 271(1)(c) started . The revenue has failed to produce any iota of evidence that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
