9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 27.02.2017 for assessment year (AY) 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the National faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has grossly erred in confirming the penalty to the extent of Rs.98,460/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.That the impugned order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi is in violation of principles of natural justice as the detailed submissions filed have not been considered at all by the NFAC, Delhi, and therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed." 2. Brief facts of the case are assessee filed her return of income claiming to be an agriculturist, for the assessment year 2012- 13 on 17.12.2013 declaring "nil" i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) for levy of penalty. The Assessing Officer recorded that hearing was fixed on 02.12.2016. None appeared on behalf of assessee nor any compliance was made on the part of assessee. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty @ 100% tax sought to be evaded. The assessing officer worked out penalty of Rs.2,97,814/-, vide order dated 27.02.2017. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee was transferred to NFAC Delhi and was adjudicated vide order dated 28.09.2021, wherein the Ld. NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee by taking view that Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment taken a value of land / assets on 01.04.1981 @ Rs. 0.40 per square meter However, the Hon'ble Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute the LTCG after adopting fair market value as on 01.04.1981 @ Rs.14.18/- per square meter. And on further appeal, before Tribunal it was directed to adopt @ Rs. 100/- per square meter. The assessee further contended that from the fact, it is evident that entire issue is debatable and is based on estimation and therefore no penalty is leviable on such present fact of the case. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) for the Revenue supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have considered the rival submission of the ld Sr DR for the revenue and written submissions of the assessee. We have also perused the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by different authorities at different times & rates. It is settled position in law that addition based on estimation no penalty is leviable. As the estimation of valuation are not final and may differ on the subjective satisfaction of different authorities. Therefore, we are of the constrained view that in such estimation of valuation no penalty is leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Even otherwise the addition of LTCG in the assessment order is based on the difference of opinion, which cannot be made basis of the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).We further find that in assessee's co-owners similar penalty was levied by assessing officer, however, on appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the same was deleted vide order dated 20.07.2021. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
