TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived more amount than that shown by it on sale of property then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 6383/MUM/2012 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2014 - Shri I. P. Bansal And Shri Sanjay Arora,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Subhash S. Shetty For the Respondent : Shri Pitamber Das ORDER Per I. P. Bansal, J. M. This appeal is filed by the assessee. It is directed against order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-29, Mumbai dated 3/7/2012 for assessment year 2007-08. Grounds of appeal read as under: 1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty of ₹ 2,27,800/- levied under section 27I(1)(c) of the Income lax Act, 1961 by the assessing off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue was considered for the purpose of computation of capital gain. On such difference impugned concealment penalty has been levied, which is calculated at ₹ 2,27,800/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The levy of penalty has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 3. At the time of hearing it was submitted by Ld. AR that this issue is covered by the decision of ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of Renu Hingorani vs. ACIT vide order dated 22/12/2010 in ITA No.2210/Mum/2010, wherein penalty levied under section similar circumstances was cancelled with the following observations: 8. We have considered the rival contentions and relevant record . We find that the AO had made addition of ₹ 9,00,824/- being difference between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271(1)(c ). Hence in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt .Ltd (supra), the penalty levied u/s 271(1)( c ) is not sustainable. The same is deleted . Copy of the aforementioned order was placed on record and was also given to Ld. DR. Ld. AR further referred to the decision of Ahmedabad Bench , which is dated 22/6/2012 in ITA No.508/Ahd/2010, wherein also similar penalty was deleted with the following observations: 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is a fact that the addition has been made by the AO in the revisionary proceedings. The addition has been made on the basis of provisions of section 50C. It is not the case of the AO that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adopted for the purpose of stamp valuation. The Revenue has also not shown as to how the assessee could he held to have actually received this amount which is in excess of the amount of ₹ 2,51.50,000. It has also not been shown as to whether any corresponding addition has been made in the hands of the buyer. In any case, the issue is also now squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Renu Hingorani (supra). In the circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Renu Hingorani (supra) as also on account of the fact that the Revenue has not been able to dislodge the findings of the learned CIT(A) that the bona fides of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 510 (b) CIT vs. Escort Finance Ltd., 328 ITR 44 5. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. If the ratio of the decision relied upon by Ld. AR are considered then they are direct decisions on the issue which pertain to addition made on application of section 50C. According to decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case where addition is made on account of application of section 50C and Revenue failed to produce any evidence to the effect that assessee has actually received more amount than that shown by it on the sale of property then penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Therefore, where addition is made on account of application of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. 5.2 In the case of CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd.(supra) the assessee made false claim under section 35D which was not considered to be a claim on which there could be two opinions and thus, the facts of that case are also different from the facts of the present case. 5.3 It is seen that the context in which both the decisions relied upon by Ld. DRhave been rendered is entirely different from the context of the present case. The law in this regard is well settled as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Work Pvt. Ltd, 198 ITR 297 (SC) that it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the context of the question under considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
