TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 1,04,405/- made u/s 50C of the Act. 2. The facts of the case are that during the year the assessee sold a plot of land No.A/14/11, Udhna Udhyognagar Sandh, for a declared sale consideration of ₹ 1,26,000/-. The AO found that Stamp Valuation Authority (SVA) has valued the property at ₹ 2,27,405/- for the purposes of levy of Stamp Duty. Accordingly the AO substituted the declared sale consideration with the valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authority and calculated capital gain thereon. Thus as against declared short-term capital gain of ₹ 46,000/- the AO worked out short-term capital gain of ₹ 1,47,405/- resulting in an addition of ₹ 1,01,405/- in the declared income. The AO thereafter initiated penalty p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y deeming it as sale consideration the assessee has concealed the particulars of income. In my considered view this presumption is unfounded. Section 50C does provide an option to the assessee to claim before the AO that valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authorities is higher than market value of the property and, therefore, property should be referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer for determining its market value. On making such a request the AO has to refer the property which is sold, to the Departmental Valuation Officer who will determine the market value of the property as on the date of sale. In case market value of the property so determined by District Valuation Officer is more than the valuation done by Stamp Valuation Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal gains by the assessee in the manner it has been done by him cannot be said to be in any way inaccurate or there is any hiding any particulars of income. All the facts are on record and as per law AO has substituted the valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authority in place of declared sale consideration. If for certain reasons assessee has not chosen to exercise an option of asking the AO to refer the property to the DVO it would not mean that initial claim was in any way incorrect, false or filled with concealment. 4. In any way Hon. Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 (SC) has held that merely by making a claim which is not accepted by the AO, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Even otherwise I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
