TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court. The penalty cannot stand by itself because false result may be produced by the falsity of one or more of the constituent items in the return. The word ‘inaccurate particulars’ would cover falsity in the final figure and also the constituent elements or items. They simply would mean inaccurate in some specific or definite respect whether in the constituent or subordinate items of income or the end result. Concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars implies some deliberate act on the part of the assessee in withholding the true facts from the authorities. Since, the basis of levying penalty remains no more in existence, after deletion of quantum addition, therefore, from this angle, the stand of the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO.6859/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2015 - Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, And Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member For the Petitioner : Shri Mahesh O. Rajora For the Respondent ; Shri Vijay Kumar Soni-DR ORDER Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07/10/2013 of the ld. First Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the addition made by the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the jewellery found during the search action belonged to the members of the Doshi family, including the assessee, the names of whom are mentioned as under: i) Mr. Pravin H Doshi (Spouse of Appellant) ii) Mrs. Neela Pravin Doshi (Self-Appellant) iii) Mr. Munish P Doshi (Son of Appellant) iv) Mrs. Alka Munish Doshi (Daughter in law) v) Master Manav Munish Doshi (Grand Son of Appellant) vi) Mr. Rajesh P Doshi (Son of Appellant) vii) Mrs. Priti Rajesh Doshi (Daughter in law) viii) Pravin H Doshi (HUF) ix) Mrs. Ranjan Ben R Doshi. (widow of late Shri Ratilal Doshi) (Aunty of spouse) The assessee also furnished the following evidences to explain the source of acquisition of the jewellery in question: a) Jewellary valuation Report dt.1.11.1995 of Suresh C Kapoor, Government Approved Value (during search action in 1995) b) Jewellary valuation Report dt.23.4.2004 as on 3 1.3.2004 of Shrenik R Shah (Jewellary Report obtained for Wealth Tax P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harts No. I II in the above manner in relation to gold items, the contents of which have also been reproduced in the impugned order. 7. The Ld. CIT(A), after tallying and making comparative analysis of the items disclosed by the assessee in the approved valuer s report with that of the report made during search action, observed that most of the items mentioned in chart No.I mathed with the description given in the valuation report of the approved valuer, except items No.24 25 being gold ginni and gold coin respectively, which the assessee claimed to have been received as gift. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore directed the AO to delete the addition in respect of the remaining items mentioned in chart No. I, except the above stated two items amounting to ₹ 82,392/- and ₹ 75,823/- respectively. In relation to chart No.II, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the items mentioned in chart No.II did not exactly match with the description made in the approved valuers reports. He, therefore, confirmed the additions in respect of items of gold jewellery mentioned in chart No.II. The Ld. CIT(A) also directed the assessee to prepare similar charts in respect of diamond jewellery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estimation of carat weight. 10. We find that it is not a case where the items mentioned in the valuation reports submitted by the assessee did not match at all with that of the items of jewellery which were found during the search action. Not only the description of the jewellery sets, bangles, pendant, eartopes etc. matched with the valuation report but also the number of diamonds embedded in the jewellery. So far as the estimation of carat weight is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the weight was not measured by extracting the diamonds out of the jewellery, but was just estimated by the Departmental Valuer. Under such circumstances, the minor difference in carat weight value, especially when the same was not exactly weighed by the Departmental Valuer could not be the sole criteria to hold that the description of jewellery did not match. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has further invited our attention to page No1 of the paper book which is the summary of the gold jewellery. He has explained that the total gold jewellery shown by the assessee and his family members in the books was of 9919.790 gms. whereas the jewellery found and valued by the Departmental Valuer was of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of remaking charges. In the case of ACIT vs. Shri Kamalkishan H. Aggarwal in ITA No.777/M/1998 and ITA No.5127/M/1995 others decided vide common order dated 21.06.13, the Tribunal under somewhat similar circumstances has observed that normal presumption is that during the course of the search, the entire jewellery found at residence, in Bank lockers, other premises and also on person is duly inventorised. If the weight of the jewellery found at the time of search is more than the weight declared in Wealth Tax returns, the difference has to be taken to be unexplained jewellery unless the assessee is able to establish that fresh jewellery was purchased and sources thereof are explained. it is normal that some of the ornaments are dismantled and remade. it would be unreasonable to take a stand that all the ornaments found at the time of search must accurately compare in description and weight with the ornaments declared in the wealth tax return. The possibility that some of the items could have been remade cannot be ruled out. The important point is that the ornaments found should not be in excess in quantity as compared to the ornaments declared in the Wealth Tax returns. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence:- These two appeals have been filed by two assessees against the order of CIT(A), for the assessment year 2007-08, in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act. 2. Common grievance in both the appeals relate to disallowance of claim of deduction u/s.54(1) in respect of residential flats acquired by the assessees in consideration of old house sold to the builder. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee Vilma Mary Pereira has sold immovable property situated at Violet Valley (with garage) at Junction of 26th and 30th Road at Bandra (W), Mumbai for a total consideration of ₹ 3,05,00,000/- vide agreement dated 28.4.2006 to M/s. Aqua Marine Enterprises. The share of the assessee is 23% in the said property and the other assessee Mr. Peter Pereira was having share of 77% in the said house. From the agreement, the A.O. observed that the assessee was to receive three more flats i.e. two flats having a carpet area of 1200 sq.ft. each and one flat having carpet area of 750 sq.ft. and three parking spaces (two stilt and one open) as part of additional consideration. However, the additional consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration. If the new flat was to be given in lieu of the old area occupied by the assessee in the old structure, then the value of the said old structure should have been reduced from the value of the entire property as on 1.4.1981 while computing the LTCG on such sale. However, the assessee has taken the FMV of the entire property as on 1.4.1981 into consideration while computing the LTCG on the sale of such property. 5. The A.R. of the assessee vide his submission dated 12.11.2009 stated that if market value of the new flat is added to income of the assessee, then the investment in new residential property should be allowed u/s.54 at market value. The AO. analysed the contention of the assessee. According to the A.O., exemption u/s.54 is available only when the assessee has purchased a new flat one year before or two years after the date of transfer or has constructed a new residential' house within a period of three years from the date of transfer of the house property (original). The flats (alongwith car 'parking spaces) received by the assessee in the proposed building as 'additional consideration' agreed upon in the agreement dated 28.4.2006 was ove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two stilt parking in kind. 2. In the assessment order. the A.O. has valued the consideration received in kind for ₹ 3,32,70,540/- and additions were made in the assessment order under the head long term capital gains without considering the said amount as reinvestment is neither purchased nor constructed by the assessee. 3. As regards benefit of section 54, this section makes it clear that capital gain arising from the transfer of a house property is exempt from tax provided the following conditions are satisfied :- (a) The house property is a residential house whose income is taxable under the head 'Income from house property' as transferred by an individual or an HUF. (b) The house property (may be self occupied or let out) is a long term capital asset. (c) The assessee has purchased a residential house within a period of one year before the transfer or within two years after the date of transfer or has constructed a residential house property within a period of three years after the date of transfer. The appellant has fulfilled the precondition mentioned at point Nos.(a) (b) above was not in doubt. This was also not in dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orm of new flats to be constructed on the plot of old house sold by assessee. The new flats agreed to be given to assessee amounts to investment by assessee in residential house. Therefore, the AO was not justified in adding back the additional consideration given in the form of allotment of three flats by declining claim of deduction u/s.54 of the I.T.Act. 10. In the present case before us, the assessee has purchased/constructed the new residential property and paid the consideration equivalent of price by payment in kind. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s.54 of I.T.Act, 1961 in respect of these flats. 11. An issue was also raised by the AO with regard to sharing of 3 flats between the co-owners of the property and the exemption u/s.54 allowable in case of investment in one residential flat only. In this regard, we found that the details of allocation of area of new residential property between co-owners are as follows :- Name Ratio Area In Sq.Ft. Description Mr. Peter S. Pereira 77% 2400 Flat No.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y post-retirement. One may build a house consisting of four bedrooms (all in the same or different floors) in such a manner that an independent residential unit consisting of two or three bedrooms may be carved out with an independent entrance so that it can be let out. He may even arrange for his children and family to stay there, so that they are nearby, an arrangement which can be mutually supportive. He may construct his residence in such a manner that in case of a future need he may be able to dispose of a part thereof as an independent house. There may be several such considerations for a person while constructing a residential house. The physical structuring of the new residential house, whether it is lateral or vertical, should not come in the way of considering the building as a residential house. The fact that the 'residential house consists of several independent units cannot be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under s.54/54F. It isneither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited. Tribunal was therefore justified in allowing exemption under s.54 in respect of entire investment in construction of basement, ground floor, firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emains no more in existence, after deletion of quantum addition, therefore, from this angle, the stand of the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is justified. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is having no merit, therefore, dismissed. 2.3. There is no dispute that quantum addition has been deleted by the Tribunal, therefore, in our humble opinion, the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the penalty. Admittedly, the impugned order is dated 07/10/2013, whereas, the order of quantum addition of the Tribunal is dated 31/07/2015, meaning thereby, the order of the Tribunal was even not even existence. Our view further finds support from the decision and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P Viz Construction company 176 ITR 47 (Patna) and K.C. Builders vs ACIT 265 ITR 562 (Supreme Court). We are of the view where the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was levied and after deleting the quantum addition, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty. Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand in itself if the addition made in the assessment itself is set aside or cancelled by the superior authority/Court. The penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
