9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquired by the Government of Gujarat for which the assessee received 50% compensation out of the total compensation of Rs. 13,43,952. In the statement of income for filing return the assessee had shown the following computation: "Total compensation received (1/2th of Rs. 13,43,952) Rs. 6,71,976 Less: Value of land as on 1- 1-74 estimated at the rate of Rs. 25 per sq.yds. for 744.5 sq.yds. Rs. 1,86,037 -------------------- Rs. 4,85,939 Less: Deduction under section 80T (First Rs. 10,000 at the rate of 10096 and balance at the rate of 50 %) Rs. 2,47,969 ---------------------- Rs. 2,37,970 Less: Deduction under section 54B for Investment in agricultural land. Rs. 2,73, 094 ----------------------- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inaccurate particulars of income. The First Appellate Authority upheld the order of penalty against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The learned counsel on behalf of the assessee submitted that the authorities below have wrongly levied penalty in the present case because under a bona fide belief the assessee claimed relief under section 54B of the Act. Further it was submitted that the assessee was denied relief under section 54B on the ground that it was an HUF and not an individual. However, the claim of the assessee was based on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of J. Raghottama Reddy v. ITO [1988] 169 ITR 174/[1987] 35 Taxman 298. The assessee had no intention to conceal any income or furnishing inacc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on 1-4-1974. This point was discussed in detail in the penalty order by the Assessing Officer from which it appears that at the time of filing return the assessee has estimated the value of land at the rate of Rs. 25 per sq. yard. By filing a written submission the same was changed at Rs. 16 per sq. yard. Again the value of the land was estimated at Rs. 25 per sq. yard by filing a written submission along with the valuer's report in the case of Shri Rameshbhai on a different land of Survey Nos. 1069 and 1067 whereas the land of the assessee pertained to Survey No. 1065. Again on 14-2-1989 the assessee requested to value the land at Rs. 33 per sq. yard and in support of this valuation the assessee furnished a copy of the valuation report d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 54B afterwards and tried to reduce his income to nil. As per the Income tax Act, the deduction under section 80T is to be given after computing the income as per provisions of law but before allowing any deduction under Chapter VI-A. Thus, the assessee by putting incorrect computation under section 80T as described above concealed the particulars of income for which penalty under section 271(1)(c) is clearly eligible in this case." On perusal of the said finding it is quite clear that the assessee himself was confused with regard to the correct valuation to be adopted for the purpose of computing capital gains. The assessee had submitted different valuation on different dates relied on. different materials and sale instance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. Nowhere in the assessment order or any of the appellate orders in quantum appeals there is a finding to the effect that the assessee had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. It is true that the assessee had submitted different values at different times for the land in question relying on different materials but that does not meant at the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of attracting penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. All the valuations either submitted by the assessee or accepted by the Assessing Officer are on estimate basis. The other ground for levying penalty is that the assessee had made an incorrect computation of income by claiming deduction under section 80G first and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances, in our opinion, the penal provision under section 271(1)(c) cannot be attracted. In the case of CIT v. Off Shore India Ltd [1994] 209 ITR 473 the Calcutta High Court held that there must be deliberateness in not abiding by a legal requirement and a bona fide belief as to non-applicability of a provision precludes initiation of such proceedings. While delivering the judgment the Hon'ble High Court placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 where it has been held that even if a minimum penalty is prescribed the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty when there is a technical or venial breach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
