9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed in respect of the addition made by applying Section 50C when there was no material on record to show that the assessee had received more amount than that shown by it on sale of property. In the present case, AO in the absence of any evidence regarding receipt of money in addition to the sale consdiertion disclosed in the sale deed and even without there being any allegation to that effect, the A.O based on the fiction created u/s 43CA of the Act, the addition has been made which cannot be sustained under law. By following the settled principal of law mentioned above, we are of the opinion that, CIT(A) has justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the Ld. A.O. Therefore, the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) has failed to appreciate the fact that while deleting the levy of penalty of a sum of Rs. 57,58,358/-, he should have quashed the impugned penalty proceedings, as there was neither furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income nor could it be validly held that there was any concealment of income on the facts of the case, neither there was any specific allegation in the show cause notice to that effect for initiation and imposition of penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act and as such, the penalty so levied is unsustainable in law and was liable to be deleted, on this ground. 1.1 That the learned CIT (A) has further failed to appreciate the fact that penalty so imposed on twin conditions is unjustified and contrary to variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The Ld. DR vehemently submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not treating reference made by the A.O to the DVO as valid and erroneously deleted the penalty. Therefore, by relying on the order of the A.O sought for the interference by the Tribunal. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, there is no document to show that the assessee has received more amount than it has shown in the sale deed. Further, relied on various judicial pronouncements to support his case and relied on the orders of the CIT(A) 7. We have heard the parties perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. The Ld.CIT(A) while adjudicating the appeal has minutely discussed the factual aspects and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sale of property was offered for taxation, but the A.O made addition invoking Section 50C on the basis of deemed sale consideration being higher than the sale value, in the absence of any iota of evidence that assessee has received more amount than that shown by it, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not imposable. In the case of CIT Vs. Fortune Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2015)232 Taxman 481 (Bom), it has been help that where in respect of sale of a property, matter was referred to DVO who determined sale consideration at a higher amount, that by itself would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of addition made u/s 50C. Further, in the case of Harish Voovaya Shetty Vs. ITO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
