9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee’s explanation is bereft of any evidence or plausibility. This is grossly against the surrounding circumstances, human conduct and preponderance of possibilities as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court ). The assessee filed valuation report alongwith return of income and its claim of cost of improvement runs contrary to the evidence of valuation report. In view of these glaring inconsistencies, the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ) cannot be applied to assessee’s case. Thus no infirmity in the orders of the authorities below confirming the penalty which are upheld. - Decided against assessee. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars as supplied are inaccurate so as to be exigible for concealment. c) Where there is a finding that the details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there is no question of inviting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Mere making of claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. d) Mere rejection of explanation is not sufficient and that revenue must go further and establish that there has been conscious concealment of particulars. e) The occurrence of actual expenditure in my joint land is not question without which the property could be disposed of at handsome price fetched on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(1)(c) of the IT Act of the AO as well as the above submission of the appellant have been considered. The first ground of appeal of the appellant is that the AO has failed and has gravely erred in law and justice in not following the supreme court's judgment as explained and treated it to be an inaccurate particular and imposed penalty of ₹ 9,28,093/- . The second ground of appeal of the f appellant is that the AO has failed and has gravely erred in law and justice in not appreciating the facts and records of the case and having not discharged the onus of proving the same to be inaccurate and imposed penalty on ₹ 9,28,093/-. With regard to these two grounds of appeal of the appellant, it is mentioned that the above income o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve claim of expenses of ₹ 9,28,093/- for improvement of land is without any documentary evidence and in no way such claim of the appellant can be accepted. Considering all these facts, I hold that the AO has correctly levied the penalty of ₹ 3,23,600/- u/s / 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and therefore, the same is confirmed. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the facts and contends that it is not the case of the AO that the assessee did not file any evidence as a confirmatory letter from Shri M.C. Patel regarding incurring of expenditure on behalf of the assessee over a period of seven years was filed. Merely because the assessee could not file any bills and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Following facts clearly emerge from the record:- a) Assessee s valuation report itself does not indicate any fact about incurring of any cost of improvement. The valuation report is given by a Registered Valuer, which is relied on by the assessee. Assessee cannot disregard its own evidence based on one Shri M.C. Patel vague statement that over a period of seven years he has incurred expenditure around ₹ 2 lacs on behalf of the assessee. There being no year-wise break-up or objectivity in the statement, the same cannot be relied on as against the statutory valuation report. b) The assessee s explanation is bereft of any evidence or plausibility. This is grossly against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
