TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer made an addition of ₹ 3,60,518/- being long term capital gain by invoking the provisions contained in section 50C of the I.T. Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 28.04.2008 amounting to ₹ 73,546/-. 3. On appeal, in the impugned order, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the penalty in the hands of the assessee @100% of Tax sought to be evaded on income determined under section 154 only i.e. at 50% of concealment earlier determined in the assessment proceedings. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. On the date fixed for hearing, none was present from the side of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment. Hence, we affirm the order of the learned CIT(A). 5. On the other hand, Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr.D.R., appearing on behalf of the Revenue, vehemently supported the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). 6. We have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is pertinent to note that in the quantum proceedings, there is no finding that the assessee has received anything more than the consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The addition was made by invoking the provisions contained in section 50C of the I.T.Act, 1961. In the case of Shri Haresh P. Shah (supra), relied on by the ld. Counsel of the assessee, on identical fact, the penalty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rposes of levy of Stamp Duty then valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authority, will be taken as sale consideration for calculating capital gains. In case valuation done by District Valuation Officer is less than the valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authority then such market value as determined by District Valuation Officer would be substituted as sale consideration in place of either declared sale consideration or valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authority. Therefore, it is incorrect on the part of authorities of the Department to presume that assessee was legally bound to substitute the valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authorities for calculating capital gains. The assessee in his own wisdom thought to adopt the sale consideration for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that case of the assessee is not covered within the meaning of explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c). It is because assessee has furnished the explanation vide his letter dated 12.6.2009 which is not found to be false. There is no allegation that assessee has not disclosed any material fact for the purposes of assessment or for the purposes of levy of penalty. There is also no allegation that explanation furnished by the assessee is not bona fide. For invoking explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) all the three ingredients are to be cumulatively and simultaneously satisfied as held by the Tribunal in ITAT, Lucknow Bench in Star International (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2008) 23 SOT 88 (Lucknow) and in the present case none of the ingredients is satisfie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
