TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion received by the assessee for the purpose of computation of capital gain. Thus, for application of section 50C of the Act, it is not necessary for the A.O. to examine whether actually assessee has received anything over and above the amount mentioned in the sale deed as he simply has to go by the valuation adopted by the SRO. However, as far as imposition of penalty is concerned, there must be positive evidence before the A.O. to conclude that assessee has received the amount as valued by SRO for stamp duty purpose. Unless there are positive evidence to indicate Bhavya Anant Udeshi, Hyderabad. receipt of on money to the extent of valuation made by SRO by the assessee, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. Further, in the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shi, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the A.O., though, the assessee has declared sale consideration as per the sale deed at ₹ 1 lakh, however, for the purpose of stamp duty, the registering authority of the State Government had valued the property at ₹ 2,55,50,000. The A.O. therefore, invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act, completed the assessment in the case of the assessee by computing capital gain at ₹ 2,54,58,000. Being aggrieved of the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) having confirmed the capital gain determined by the A.O., assessee carried further appeal before the ITAT. However, the ITAT also uphe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.O s view that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Being aggrieved, assessee is before us. 3. The learned A.R. submitted before us that there being no conclusive evidence before the A.O. to prove the fact that assessee has received any amount over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the valuation made by the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of stamp duty cannot be considered as the amount received by the assessee. The A.R. submitted that the provision of section 50C being a deeming provision, it cannot be used for the purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). Learned A.R. submitted, the assessee having furnis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate particulars of income. The learned D.R. further submitted that the computation of capital gain by applying the provisions of section 50C in the case of the assessee having been upheld by the ITAT, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is justified. 5. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials available on record. As Bhavya Anant Udeshi, Hyderabad. can be seen from the facts and materials on record, while the assessee computed capital gain on the basis of sale consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed, the A.O. computed the capital gain by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act as the registering authority of the State Government has valued the property for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, the assessee in the course of assessment proceeding has furnished all necessary and relevant documents relating to the transaction of the property in question including registered sale deed. The assessee has not suppressed any material fact from the notice of the A.O. In these circumstances, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, in our view, is not appropriate. The ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Renu Hingorani, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range 19(3), Mumbai (supra) while considering identical nature of dispute, deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding as under : 8. We have considered the rival contentions and rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment was incorrect and wrong. Accordingly the addition because of the deeming provisions does not ipso facto attract the penalty u/s 271 (1)(c). Hence in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vis Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd (supra), the penalty levied u/s 271 (1)(c) is not sustainable. The same is deleted. 5.1. The principles laid down in other decisions relied upon by Ld. A.R. also express similar view. Following the consistent view expressed in the decisions referred to above, we are of the opinion that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the present case is not valid. Accordingly, we delete the penalty. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Bhavya Anant U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
