Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 1066 - ITAT JAIPUR

2015 (6) TMI 1066 - ITAT JAIPUR - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - income under the head capital gain is assessed U/s 50C by deeming the value assessed by the stamp authorities as the full value of consideration for the purpose of section 48 - Held that:- The assessee had shown sale consideration at ₹ 8 lacs whereas as per Section 50C of the Act, the Stamp Authority has assessed the value of property at ₹ 12,35,730/-, there was difference at ₹ 4,75,658/- in the capital gain, which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

IT) ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25/06/2012 passed by the learned CIT(A), Alwar for A.Y. 2008-09. The sole ground of appeal is as under:- 1 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Alwar has erred in imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act of ₹ 68116/- and sustained by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), deserve to be deleted. 2. The sole ground of appeal i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2,35,730/-. Therefore, there was a short assessment of capital gain by ₹ 4,35,730/-. The Assessing Officer after recording the reasons U/s 147 on 27/3/2010 had reopened the case and issue notice U/s 148 of the Act. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had filed the revised computation of income by considering the sale value of industrial plot at ₹ 12,35,730/- U/s 50C of the Act and paid the self assessment tax at ₹ 98,550/- on 19/3/2010 and also revised retu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

epted as such, therefore, there was no concealment U/s 271(1)(c) as the assessee had suo moto disclosed the income. There was bonafide belief that the assessee had not concealed any particulars of income and not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer after relying on the decision of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mohd. Mohtram Farooqi 259 ITR 132 (Raj) and Badri Prasad Om Prakash Vs. CIT 163 ITR 440 (Raj) wherein surrendered after seizure c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessee was not agreed to the value adopted by the registrar and thought of referring to the valuation officer for valuation of capital asset is not borne out by the evidence on record since in the computation of total income, as per the original return filed, the appellant has clearly stated the value u/s 50C at ₹ 8 lacs as against the value determined at ₹ 1235730/- for stamp duty purpose by the registrar. Further, the appellant has not given any note with the return of income .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tter dated 29/01/2010. The assessee did not mention any thing in respect of concealment of income in its reply filed on 10/02/2010. Therefore, the deposit of tax on capital gains before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act will not mean that there is concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has filed its second return on 25/03/2010 in response to the notice U/s 148 dated 24/03/2010 which was served on 24/03/2010 and not on 25/03/2010 as stated by the ld. AR. This second return .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e value u/s 50C at ₹ 1235730/-. (k) I have considered the cases relied upon by the ld. AR. In the case reported as CIT Vs. Suresh Chand Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC) and CIT Vs. Carreers Education and Infotech Pvt. Ltd. 336 ITR 257 (P&H), the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) was deleted for the reason that the revenue did not discharge its burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. In this regard reference is made to the order of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 22 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eturn. Even if the income is surrendered in the revised return, the assessee still have to explain why the income was not shown and why inaccurate particulars of income were furnished in the original return. I find that in the case of appellant, inaccurate particulars has been filed in the original return by mentioning the value u/s 50C at ₹ 8 lacs instead of ₹ 1235730/- in computation of capital gain as a result of which income under the head capital gains of (475658-39928) ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7; 68,116/- which is also the minimum penalty leviable. Accordingly, the levy of penalty at ₹ 68,116/- is upheld. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld AR for the assessee has submitted that the issue in this case is whether penalty U/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed where the income under the head capital gain is assessed U/s 50C by deeming the value assessed by the stamp authorities as the full value of consideration for the purpose of section 48. This issue is well settled by 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