TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 50C. Therefore, in view of the various decisions as relied upon by the Ld. Authorized Representative as well as by the CIT(A), we do not find any error in the impugned order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c). - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO. 6454/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 10-12-2014 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Revenue: Shri Neil Philip For the Assessee: Shri Vimal Punmiya ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 7-7- 2011 of CIT(A) arising from the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue has raised solitary ground as under:- On the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of Assessing Officer and submitted that when the provisions of section 50C are applicable in the case of the assessee then computing the Short term Capital Gain de hors the section 50C amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of particulars of income liable for levy of penalty. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative has submitted that the assessee has produced all the relevant details as well as records including the sale agreement, wherein, the sale consideration was agreed upon between the parties and actually received by the assessee, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the Short term Capital Gain by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ately. It is also undisputed that all the particulars and material facts were furnished by the assessee either along with return of income and during the course of assessment proceedings. There is no concealment of any particulars on the part of the assessee. The AO had not doubted genuineness and validity of the documents produced before him and sale consideration received by the assessee. On the contrary, facts of the case that the office premises were transferred to sister concern itself proves that there was no case to doubt the sale consideration shown in the agreement as submitted by the assessee, 70% share in the transferee company is held by the nearest family members of the partners i.e. son, wife or father and therefore it can not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable in the light of the facts of the case, hence the same is deleted. 6. As it is clear that the assessee has disclosed all relevant details as well as documents in support of its computation of Short term Capital Gain by taking into consideration the actual sale consideration received by the assessee. The fact of actual sale consideration received by the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer but the addition was made simply by applying the deeming provisions of section 50C. Therefore, in view of the various decisions as relied upon by the Ld. Authorized Representative as well as by the CIT(A), we do not find any error in the impugned order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c). 7. In the result a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
