9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Prakash Industries Ltd.[ 2016 (3) TMI 1060 - ITAT DELHI] Also see case of CIT vs Lahsa Construction Pvt.Ltd .[ 2013 (9) TMI 969 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as held that addition cannot be justified solely relying upon the valuation report . Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer ("AO") while framing the assessment, made addition of INR 42,71,500/- being 20% of the difference between circle rate and sale consideration vide order dated 20.12.2018 and assessed the income of the assessee at INR 49,37,870/-. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings separately u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). In quantum proceedings, the assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who restricted the addition to Rs. 5,70,404/- on the basis of District Valuation Officer ("DVO") report. However, the AO in the penalty proceedings, imposed penalty of Rs. 1,41,890/- in respect of the additions sustained by Ld.CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who sustained the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis to construe concealment for the purpose of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of DCIT vs JMD Advisors Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.1464/Del/2007 and the decision in the case of ACIT vs Prakash Industries Ltd. in ITA No.6230/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 1996-97 dated 19.02.2016 wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- 11. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is undisputed fact that the penalty has been imposed entirely on the basis of difference in value of the fixed assets as per the books of account of the assessee and the valuation arrived at by the DVO. It is also an undisputed fact that apart from the DVO' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered. In that case, some explanation had been offered by the assessee as to why the construction was at an economical cost. This explanation was not accepted by the ITO. The learned Judges held that even if the assessee's explanation were not acceptable, it would still require some further material to support the finding that the assessee had concealed its taxable income. We respectfully agree with this view. '' Similarly, a co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal has held in DCIT vs. JMD Advisors (P) Ltd. 124 ITD 223 (Delhi Trib.), "…the valuation made by the DVO is an estimate which can be a basis for making addition to the income of the assessee for the purpose of assessment, but the same alone cannot be the basis to construe con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
