9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying the said provision, the Assessing Officer need not have to establish whether actual sale consideration received by assessee is the value adopted by the stamp valuing authority for stamp duty purpose. However, as far as imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, the Assessing Officer has to prove the fact that the assessee actually received as sale consideration, the amount determined as the value for stamp duty purpose. There is not even a single evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer which could even remotely establish that the assessee has received anything over and above the declared sale consideration. Merely because the addition was made by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 2,23,87,054, for stamp duty purpose. Therefore, alleging that sale consideration shown by the assessee is lesser than the market value by ₹ 15,97,054, in respect of each flat the Assessing Officer sought to invoke the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Though the assessee objected to invoking the provisions of section 50C, but the Assessing Officer, rejecting assessee's contention, invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act and considered the total sale consideration for the two flats of ₹ 4,47,74,108, being the value adopted by the registering authority for stamp duty purpose. This resulted in addition of ₹ 31,94,108, as short term capital gain. Being aggrieved of such addition, though the assessee prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egally inadmissible claim by itself would not lead to a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee, observed that the assessee has furnished all particulars of the transactions relating to the sale of the property as well as value adopted by the stamp valuation authority. Hence, question of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income does not arise. Further, he observed that the issue whether the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority for stamp duty purpose is the actual consideration received by the assessee is a debatable issue in view of the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act. Hence, it cannot be said that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale consideration, the amount determined as the value for stamp duty purpose. There is not even a single evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer which could even remotely establish that the assessee has received anything over and above the declared sale consideration. Merely because the addition was made by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act on the basis of value determined by the stamp valuation authority, the assessee cannot be saddled with penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act either for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. Moreover, in the present case, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, as could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
