TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee was not able to prove otherwise – Decided against assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Held that:- There was no concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee on the above addition/disallowance to attract the penal provisions laid down u/s 271 (1) ( C) – Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 4646 & 4647/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2013 - Shri I. C. Sudhir And Shri B. C. Meena,JJ. Sh. Bagh Singh, Adv. Sh. Satpat Singh, Sr.DR. ORDER Per I. C. Sudhir, JM:- The assessee has questioned first appellate orders, whereby the ld. CIT (A) has upheld the action of the AO in making addition u/s 50C of the Act and the related disallowance/addition, and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was taken at Rs.2,32,170/- for F.Ys. 1997-98 and 1998-99 and at Rs. 1,16,085/- for F.Y. 1999-2000. The AO accordingly worked out the long term capital gain from the sale of the property at Rs.4,02,189/- adopting the sale consideration of the property u/s 50C of the Act at Rs.14,90,000/- 3. In support of the grounds raised in ITA No. 4646/ the ld. AR has placed reliance on the submissions made before the authorities below. The ld. DR on the other hand tried to justify the assessment order and first appellate order on the issues. 4. Considering the above submissions we find that the authorities below have adopted the sale consideration of the property sold at Rs.14,90,000/- u/s 50C of the Act against the declared consideration of Rs.14,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Tribunal we are not inclined to interfere with the first appellate order in this regard as the same is reasoned one. Ground no. 3 is accordingly rejected. 7. In result appeal is dismissed. In ITA No. 4647/ the assessee has questioned first appellate order in sustaining the levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (C ) of the Act on the above addition/disallowance made and sustained by the authorities below. 8. The contention of the ld. AR remained that the above addition/disallowance have been made on account of the claimed capital gain on the basis of disclosed material facts by the assessee, hence, there was no occasion before the AO to arrive at a conclusion that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
