New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 251 - ITAT HYDERABAD

2015 (10) TMI 251 - ITAT HYDERABAD - [2015] 43 ITR (Trib) 487 (ITAT [Hyd]) - Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - assessee has knowingly/deliberately disclosed the sale consideration of property at a lesser rate than what was determined by the registering authority - assessee an individual is a non-resident Indian - Held that:- As can be seen from the language of section 50C it is a deeming provision. In a case where A.O. finds that the value determined by the stamp duty authority for the purpose o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 present case as is evident from the materials on record, the assessee in the course of assessme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt case is not valid. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA.No.565/Hyd/2015 - Dated:- 4-9-2015 - SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Mr. Ajay Gandhi For The Revenue : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. The aforesaid appeal of the assessee is directed against the Order dated 26.02.2015 of Ld. CIT(A)- X, Hyderabad dated 26.02.2015 confirming penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of an amount of ₹ 50,91,600 for t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 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 confirme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

isclosed the sale consideration of property at a lesser rate than what was determined by the registering authority. Though, assessee in reply to the show cause notice rebutted the allegation made by the A.O. and submitted that assessee has furnished all material particulars relating to sale transaction of property by furnishing sale deeds and all other documents for the consideration of the A.O. and the determination of the capital gain is only by applying the provisions of section 50C by adopti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the levy of penalty by endorsing the 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 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on record to show that assessee has furnished Bhavya Anant Udeshi, Hyderabad. inaccurate particulars of income. In support of his contention, learned A.R. relied upon the following decisions : 1. Renu Hingorani, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range 19(3), Mumbai Order dt.22.12.2010 in ITA.No.2210/Mum/2010 2. Shri Chimanlal Manilal Patel, Surat vs. ACIT, Cir.6, Surat Order dt.22.06.2012 in ITA.No.508/Ahd/2010 3. ACIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. M/s. Sunland Metal Recycling, Mumbai Order dt.10.12.2014 in ITA.No.6454/Mum/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0 for stamp duty purpose has shown the value at lesser amount for the purpose of computing capital gain. Therefore, to that extent, there is furnishing of inaccurate 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 material .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessee s quantum appeal has upheld application of section 50C of the Act for the purpose of computation of capital gain but that itself will not lead to the conclusion that assessee either has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the particulars of income. As can be seen from the language of section 50C it is a deeming provision. In a case where A.O. finds that the value determined by the stamp duty authority for the purpose of stamp duty is more than the consideration claimed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ust 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 present case as is evident from the materials on record, the assessee in the course of assessment proceeding has furnished all necessary and relev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntical 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 relevant record. We find that the AO had made addition of ₹ 9,00,824/- being difference between the sale consideration as per sale agreement and the valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority. Thus, the addition has been made by the AO by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act. It is evident from the assessment order that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version