Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 672 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - difference between actual sale consideration and DLC value of immovable property sold by the assessee - addition tax liability has arisen on account of applying the deeming provisions of section 50C - HELD THAT:- No evidence has been brought on record by the Assessing officer that any money over and above the sale consideration as per the sale deed was received by the assessee. Assessee has suo-moto adopted the value of the immoveable property as determined and adopted by the stamp duty authorities which to our mind, put the case of the assessee on a better footing and in any case, cannot be worse off as compared to aforesaid cited cases where the additions have been made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 50C and which later on, have been accepted by the respective assessees by not going in further appeal. A case of self declaration and self adoption of value as adopted by stamp duty authorities while filing the return of income by the assessee and which has been accepted in entirety by the AO. Where the value so declared in the return of income has been accepted by the Assessing officer, there cannot be any basis for levy of penalty for concealment of income. Revenue’s only contention is that such return of income has not been filed voluntarily and has been filed only in response to notice u/s 148 and thus, in a way, it is a case of deemed concealment - There was a reasonable cause with the assessee for not filing the return originally within prescribed time as he holds a belief that his taxable income was below the taxable limit and no tax liability arises thereon considering the actual sale consideration received by the assessee on sale of shop amounting to ₹ 3,50,000/-. The bonafide of such belief has not been challenged by the Revenue, as we have noted above that there is no finding or adverse material that the assessee has received any consideration over and above the sale consideration. We therefore find that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee for not filing the return of income originally within prescribed time and thus, the second condition is not satisfied in the instant case. The third condition of non-issuance of any notice either u/s 142(1) or section 148 within prescribed time under section 153(1) is satisfied as the notice u/s 148 has only been issued on 29.03.2017. Therefore, given the reasonable cause for non-filing the return of income, one of the essential conditions for invocation of explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) is not satisfied and thus, the case of the assessee doesn’t fall within the meaning of deemed concealment as so defined in the said explanation and the contentions so advanced by the Revenue cannot be accepted. Where the value so declared in the return of income has been accepted by the Assessing officer and infact, the returned income has been accepted, there cannot be any basis for levy of penalty - Decided in favour of assessee.
|