9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be held to be contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty. This proposition is also supported by the decision rendered in the case of Hindustan steel Ltd vs state of Orissa [ 1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT ] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member Assessee by: Ms. Arju Garodia Revenue by: Shir. Mihir Shah ORDER Shamim Yahya, This appeal by the revenue is directed against order of learned CIT-A dated 27 /1/2016, and pertains to assessment year 2009 10. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under; 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 of ₹ 34,87,20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s adopted the actual sales consideration i.e. ₹ 1,71,50,000/- for the purpose of computation of capital gains under the Act. The Assessing Officer in the Order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act made an addition of ₹ 8,21,26,000/- being the difference between stamp duty value and value adopted by the appellant by invoking the provisions of section 50C of Act and initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The Assessing Officer also referred the valuation of the land in dispute to Department Valuation Officer as per provisions of section 50C of the Act who valued the property at ₹ 3,45,86,000/-. iii) The appellant preferred an appeal against the said addition before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the impugned land for a total of ₹ 1,71,50,000/- during assessment proceedings. The appellant had also given valuation report of an approved valuer determining the FMV at ₹ 1,64,51,900/-. The AO had made addition of ₹ 8,21,26,000/- u/s 50C of the Act. This was subsequently reduced by Ld. CIT(A) to ₹ 1,74,36,000/- based on the report of the DVO who determined the FMV at ₹ 3,45,86,000/-. ii) It is seen that in the instant case, there is a registered sale deed and the consideration mentioned therein has not been proved to be wrong by the AO. The addition has been made invoking the deeming provisions of section 50c of the Act. There is no finding that the actual sale consideration is more than that mentioned in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoking deeming provisions of section 50 C. No case has been made out of any incriminating document etc. being found. In such situation assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Further more the conduct of the assessee cannot be held to be contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty. This proposition is also supported by the decision rendered by the larger bench of Hon ble apex court in the case of Hindustan steel Ltd vs state of Orissa 83 ITR 26. 9. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedents we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT-A. Accordingly we uphold the same. In the result this appeal by the revenue is stands dismissed. Order pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
