TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the sale agreement - Thus it does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - The assessee has furnished al l the relevant facts, documents/material including the sale agreement and the AO has not doubted the genuineness and validity of the documents produced before him and the sale consideration received by the assessee - It cannot be said that the assessee has not furnished correct particulars of income - Merely because the assessee agreed for addition on the basis of valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority would not be a conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per this agreement was incorrect and wrong - Hence the addition because of the deeming provisions does not ipso facto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total income of the assessee by applying the provisions of sect ion 50C of the Act . 4. The AO consequent lyinitiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) ( c ) and levied the penalty of Rs.198181/ - at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded vide order dated 20.3.2009. 5. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the CIT(A) who confirmed the act ion of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 6. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that merely because the assessee agreed for addition penalty should not be levied unless and until there is a concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has admitted the sale consideration of the f lat in quest ion which is less than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the learned AR has prayed that the penalty levied u/s 271(1) ( c ) be deleted. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR has contended that the assessee has admitted the income proposed by the AO being difference in the sale consideration as per sale agreement and the valuation made by the stamp valuation authority adopted by the AO. The assessee did not challenge the valuation made by the stamp valuation authority of the property in quest ion. Therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271(1) ( c ) is justified. He has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have considered the rival content ions and relevant record . We find that the AO had made addition of Rs.9,00,824/ - being difference between the sale consideration as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
