Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2009 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (2) TMI 258 - AT - Income TaxPenalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - Guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment - HELD THAT:- It is admitted that assessee has inherited the property and no cost had been incurred by her on acquisition. The assessee had obtained the valuer's report for the fair market value of the property as on 1st April, 1981. The AO, on the other hand, has adopted the value obtained from Sub-Registrar's office. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thulasimani Ammal vs. CIT[1999 (9) TMI 956 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that, guideline values of Registration Department has evidentiary value and cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence. Hence, from this exposition, it is clear that guideline value is not conclusive proof. If the AO prefers the value obtained from Sub-Registrar's office, it cannot be said that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment so as to attract penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Revenue's reliance upon s. 50C - Assessee claims before any AO that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-s. (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer - It is clear that the section is applicable in cases where stamp duty has been paid for transfer. Moreover, this section also postulates that the fair market value may be different from the value adopted by the registration authority and in such cases, procedure for reference to valuation cell is provided. Hence, this section is neither applicable nor it is the case of the Revenue that any reference to valuation cell has been made or that the AO has obtained independent instances of comparable sales in that period, of that area. Therefore, if the assessee has accepted addition, it cannot be said that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment. Hence, we affirm the order of CIT(A). Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
|