Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1129 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee has taken excessive cost value of the land without any evidence in order to reduce its capital gain tax liability - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that:- Both of the lower authorities have determined the rates of land, by adopting some basis. The AO had accepted the claim of the assessee in the original assessment order. He changed his stand in the reassessment order. Thus, there are three different opinions with respect to rates of land i.e. one – as formed by AO in original assessment order, two- as formed by the AO in reassessment order and three- as adopted by Ld CIT(A). The Tribunal has approved the opinion of the Ld CIT(A), which is again subject to review before Hon’ble High Court. In these circumstances, the element of guesswork cannot be ruled out, therein. The quantum of income determined is certainly not beyond the shadow of doubts. Under these circumstances, we have strong doubts, if it can be said that, with certainty, that there was any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the Assessee. Under the income tax law, parameters for determination of taxable income and levy of penalty are different from each other. Both should not be mixed or interchanged. The penal provisions are quasi criminal in nature, therefore these have to construed and applied strictly. Penalty can be levied by the AO, only and only, if, the AO is able to establish that case of the Assessee falls within the framework of the penal provisions, and as per the given parameters. If we examine the facts of this case, we can say that even if a duty may be enjoined on the assessee to make correct disclosure of income, but if such disclosure is based on the opinion of an expert, who is otherwise also a registered valuer, having been appointed in terms of a statutory scheme, then only because his opinion is not accepted or some other expert gives another opinion, the same by itself may not be sufficient for arriving at a conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, in our considered opinion, penalty cannot be levied in the facts and circumstances of this case, especially when the quantification of the income itself does not have strong pillars to stand. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|