9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SYAL, VP: These two cross appeals - one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue are directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 04.01.2016 in relation to penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act') for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee owned two prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om that, the assessee, in the computation of capital gain, attributed Rs. 1 lac towards constructed portion of building as the premises was sold on consolidated basis comprising of land and building. The Assessing Officer estimated sale consideration relatable to super structure at Rs. 32.70 lac. He accordingly made the addition. The Tribunal reduced the estimate of sale consideration towards cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, vide its order in the second round, has accepted the assessee's alternate plea for allowing such expenditure as an improvement cost u/s 48 of the Act. It is obvious that the genuineness of payment of retrenchment compensation is not disputed. As against the assessee's stand of claiming such amount as a revenue expenditure, the Tribunal has adopted another route of allowing such deduction in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration of super structure. Admittedly, no separate sale consideration of super structure was assigned in the sale deed. Whereas the assessee estimated Rs. 1 lac as sale consideration of building sold, the Assessing Officer estimated the same at Rs. 32.70 lac, which got finally settled by means of appellate order at Rs. 16.35 lac. These facts indicate that penalty is based on mere estimate. The Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
