TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished in the return. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.40/JP/2014 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2016 - SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM For The Revenue : Shri Kailash Mangal (JCIT) For The Assessee : Shri Ajay Somani (C.A.) ORDER PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order or ld. CIT (A) Ajmer dated 18.11.2013 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The assessee has raised the following ground :- 1) Directing the AO to recomputed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as per sale consideration of ₹ 27 lacs and not as per DLC rate of ₹ 1,08,91,151/- applied by the Registrar and adopted by the AO u/s 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring income at ₹ 1,40,938/- after claiming deduction under section 80C at ₹ 38,666/- filed on 30.10.2006. A notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 03.07.2008 which was duly served upon the assessee and in response the assessee vide letter dated 24.07.2008 has stated that the return filed on 30.10.2006 may be tre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al gain by taking the full value of the consideration to be the value as so revised in such appeal or revision or reference; and the provisions of section 154 shall, so far as may be apply thereto, and the period of four years shall be reckoned from the end of the previous year in which the order revising the value was passed in that appeal or revision or reference. Pursuant thereto, the AO, in view of the directions issued by the ld. CIT (A) and after receiving the response from the IG (Stamps), has passed an order under sec. 155(15) of the IT Act and thereby has determined the value of the property at ₹ 1,08,91,151/- and thereby re-affirmed the long term capital gain at ₹ 70,69,482/-. The relevant para of the assessment order passed under section 155(15) of the IT Act is reproduced herein below :- In view of the above and also as per directions of the ld. CIT (A) order no. 186/2009-10 dated 28.03.2011, it is required that the order passed u/s 143(3)/148/251 dated 18.07.2011 should be rectified by applying the provisions of section 155(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly a notice u/s 154/155 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 30.05.2012 pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as reproduced by the AO in the present order. Further, ld. CIT (A) had also passed the order u/s 154 on 17.10.2011 in respect of order dated 28.03.2011. In is apparent that the various issues involved regarding the quantum have already been dealt and decided by my predecessor. The same issues can not be reviewed or reagitated at the CIT (A) stage. So, the submissions made by the AO regarding quantum addition can not be considered at this stage as it will amount to review of the earlier appellate order which is not permissible in law. The only point of grievance arising out of the order of the AO dated 12.10.2012 is that AO should not have determined the valuation before finalization by higher form. The assessee has pointed out that the issue against valuation of property is pending before Rajasthan Tax Board Ajmer. However, it is apparent from the order of the AO that assessee had made the reference before the IG Stamps who had determined the value of the property at ₹ 1,08,91,151/-. On the receipt of said information, the AO has followed the directions as contained in the order of the CIT (A) dated 28.03.2011. It can not be claimed that after the finalization of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeming provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO has not given any finding that the actual sale consideration is more than the sale consideration admitted and mentioned in the sale agreement. Thus it does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also not the case of the revenue that the assessee has failed to furnish the relevant record as called by the AO to disclose the primary facts. The assessee has furnished all the relevant facts, documents/material including the sale agreement and the AO has not doubted the genuineness and validity of the documents produced before him and the sale consideration received by the assessee. Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee has not furnished correct particulars of income. Merely because the assessee agreed for addition on the basis of valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority would not be a conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per this agreement 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 Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
