Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 147 - ITAT CHENNAICapital gain computation - sale of closing stock - provisions of Section 50C applicability - stock was lying with the assessee on the date of sale of other fixed assets - as contended that assets were sold on going concern, slump sale basis and no consideration was assigned towards sale of closing stock - HELD THAT:- In the absence of any application by the assessee to consider the additional evidence and in fact no evidence was filed before us except by making bald assertion before us. Further, this contention militate against the very statement of the assessee that closing stock was sold as part of the immovable assets. There is yet another reason to confirm the addition, even assuming that no specific consideration was assigned to the sale of closing stock, provisions of Section 50C of the Act are attracted on the sale of fixed assets. Thus, the addition is required to be confirmed even under the provisions of Section 50C of the Act, in the light of the fact that the sale consideration received exactly matches with the guideline value prescribed for stamp duty purpose in respect of fixed assets. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities and we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. Levy of penalty u/s.271 (1) (c) in respect of addition made on account of undisclosed sale value of the closing stock - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the order of Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A), the addition was made considering sale value apportioned to various assets. Admittedly, no sale consideration was apportioned towards sale of the closing stock and the closing stock was not physically available with the assessee and the closing stock was admittedly transferred to the buyer. These admitted material facts led to addition. The only contention made by the assessee is that this was sold as part of sale of assets, which is not supported by any evidence. The Tribunal had recorded a finding that his statement is not supported by any evidence on record. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Badri Prasad Om Prakash vs. CIT [1985 (10) TMI 24 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] had held that wherever the assessee had failed to rebut the factual position on the basis of which addition was made, the levy of penalty u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act was justified. Thus, it is clear case of concealment and Assessing Officer had rightly levied penalty u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act. The contention of the assessee that in show cause notice, the Assessing Officer had not struck off the relevant limb has no relevance, since he had filed explanation in response to show cause, which means that assessee very well understood the show cause notice, and therefore the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] cannot be applied as the assessee understood the show cause and filed explanation. Recently, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Amtex Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT [2019 (6) TMI 1182 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] had reiterated the same ratio. Hence, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the assessee
|