Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1055 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - failure to take stamp duty value of property u/s 50C being land and building for sale - assessee ought to have offered capital gain tax on the basis of valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation authorities - Held that:- As is well settled, capital gain can be levied on actual sale consideration and not on fair market value. Subsection [1] of Section 50C of the Act makes a deviation in this principle and introduces a concept of deemed consideration for the purpose of Section 48 of the Act. There is thus a clear distinction between sale consideration actually received and deemed to have been received in terms of subsection [1] of Section 50C of the Act. Application of subsection [1] of Section 50C therefore cannot automatically give rise to penalty proceedings. In the present case, the assessee had in fact at one stage disputed such valuation by pointing out inter alia that the property was facing certain restrictions from the forest department, and that therefore, the valuation prescribed by the stamp valuation authority could not be automatically adopted. In the facts of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with judgment of the Tribunal. This is so since the assessee had, as noted above, initially disputed the stamp valuation. However, once the assessee gave up the challenge, revised the return and offered additional deemed income to tax. The judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Commissioner of Incometax, Orissa v. Ganpatrai Gajanand [1976 (7) TMI 33 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] was rendered in the background of Section 68 of the Act which contains vastly different provisions; as compared to Section 50C of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee.
|