9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta Revenue by : Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl.CIT) ORDER Per : Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M. These are three appeals filed by the respective assessees involving common issue of levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act arising out of the order of the ld. CIT (A), Jaipur of even date i.e, 21.01.2015 for A.Y. 2006-07 in case of Shri Nitin Pal Singh, Shri Narendra Pal Singh HUF for A.Y. 2006-07 and Vipin Jeet Singh for A.Y. 2006-07. Since common issue of levy of penalty with similar fact pattern are involved in all these appeals, the same were heard together and disposed off by consolidated order. For the sake of discussion, the case of Shri Nitin Pal Singh has been taken as lead case with consent of the both the parties. 2. Briefly the facts of the case that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold agricultural land at village Nevta Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur for ₹ 26,31,459 and after considering the cost of land at ₹ 17,83,600/-, the long term capital gains of ₹ 8,47,859 were computed. The assessee also claimed exemption u/s 54B of the Act in respect of purchase of another agric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the revised return was not pressed before the ld. CIT(A). 4. In light of above factual matrix,difference between the original return of income and the assesseed income relates to disallowance of ₹ 12,16,331/- regarding development/improvement cost of the land which is the subject matter of impugned penalty order passed by the Assessing officer and which is in consideration before this Bench. 5. The AO as well as ld CIT(A) has stated that the appellant has not been able to offer any explanation with respect to its claim of cost of development/improvement in the cost of land in the original return of income and it was accordingly held that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, the ld AR submitted that necessary explanations have been provided before the ld CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings and drawn our attention to the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings which are reproduced as under: I have considered facts of the case and arguments taken by Sh. Sethi quite carefully. It is a fact that copies of bills/vouchers regarding cost of improvement were not furnished before the assessing officer. However, consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction then such estimated cost of improvement is adopted at ₹ 1.25 lac per bigha. Since, as per sale document bearing registration number 103764 which is in respect of 15 bigha and 1 biswa land the appellant is having 5/24 share therefore, his share in biga terms comes 3.1 bigha and land as per this sale deed is having pakka boundary wall construction and constructed house thereupon and therefore, on the appellant share such cost of improvement is worked out at ₹ 3,87,500/-. Similarly, in respect of 8 bigha and 3 biswa land involved in the sale deed as per registration No. 103763 there is a mention of construction of pakka boundary wall and appellant share is 1/12th which means that the appellant was having ownership over 0.67 bigha land and @ ₹ 1 Lac per bigha such cost of improvement on estimate basis in this case is worked out at ₹ 67,000/- with this discussion total cost of improvement in the case of appellant is worked out at ₹ 4,54,500/- without giving any further benefit on account of indexation since it is presumed that such cost of improvement has been incurred in the accounting year relevant to A.Y. under consideration because there were no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd and has been claimed and shown in different years, the ld CIT(A) held that a fair estimation for such cost of improvement should be made in hands of respective family members and such estimation has now attained finality in absence of any further appeal by either of the parties. Considering the vouchers furnished by the different co-owners namely Nitin Pal Singh, Vipin Jeet Singh, Narendra Pal Singh HUF, the cost of improvement has been worked out by the ld. CIT(A) at ₹ 4,54,500/- in the hands of the assessee. 7. In light of above, it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income where there is due disclosure in the return of income and necessary explanation and supporting evidence has been provided in support of such expenditure. The incurrence of the expenditure has thus not been doubted by the Revenue but given the peculiar facts of the case involving long period during which such expenditure has been incurred and that too, by different co-owners and the fact that the assessee doesnt maintain regular books of accounts , an estimation approach was adopted by the lower authorities while denying the claim of the assessee towards the cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
