Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Smt. Jayaben Thakorbhai Patel Versus ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand

2016 (11) TMI 291 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - capital gain computation - indexed cost of improvement rejected - Held that:- Assessee’s valuation report itself does not indicate any fact about incurring of any cost of improvement. The valuation report is given by a Registered Valuer, which is relied on by the assessee. Assessee cannot disregard its own evidence based on one Shri M.C. Patel vague statement that over a period of seven years he has incurred expenditure around ₹ 2 lacs on behalf of the assessee. 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

f cost of improvement runs contrary to the evidence of valuation report. In view of these glaring inconsistencies, the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ) cannot be applied to assessee’s case. Thus no infirmity in the orders of the authorities below confirming the penalty which are upheld. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 1394/Ahd/2013 - Dated:- 30-9-2016 - Shri R. P. Tolani, Judicial Member Assessee by : Ms. Arti N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation of capital gains, assessee claimed an amount of ₹ 9,28,093/- u/s 48 towards indexed cost of improvement. As per valuation report, the value of the property was worked out at ₹ 1,05,000/- and there was no mention of any cost of improvement. The AO disallowed the assessee s claim in this behalf and computed the capital gains accordingly. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal which was dismissed on this issue which has been accepted by the assessee. The AO initiated pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there is no question of inviting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Mere making of claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. d) Mere rejection of explanation is not sufficient and that revenue must go further and establish that there has been conscious concealment of particulars. e) The occurrence of actual expenditure in my joint land is not que .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s filed. No any evidence by way of bills etc. or details of parties to whom the payments were made for labour charges, excavator s charges etc. was furnished or made available or produced. ii) The Valuer in its report has not mentioned or made any report or remark as to improvement of land being carried out by the assessee. iii) The certificate dated 06.01.2010 by Village Administrative Officer of Shamsabad does not mention anything about improvement of land by removing stone etc. from the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns:- 6. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of the AO as well as the above submission of the appellant have been considered. The first ground of appeal of the appellant is that the AO has failed and has gravely erred in law and justice in not following the supreme court's judgment as explained and treated it to be an inaccurate particular and imposed penalty of ₹ 9,28,093/- . The second ground of appeal of the f appellant is that the AO has failed and has gravely erred in law .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. As per the AO, again, the valuer in its report has not mentioned or has not made any remark in respect of improvement of land. As per the AO, even the certificate dated 06/01/2010 by the Village Administrative Officer of Shamsabad does not mention anything about improvement of land by removing stone etc. from the appellant's land. As per the AO, the confirmatory statement of Shri M.C. Patel regarding appellant's spending of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ding improvement of the land after a period of 30 years. The AR of the appellant in such submission dated 15/03/2013 has stated that the direct proof of expenditure cannot be produced after a long period of 30 years for the purpose of verification. Obviously and admittedly, the above claim of expenses of ₹ 9,28,093/- for improvement of land is without any documentary evidence and in no way such claim of the appellant can be accepted. Considering all these facts, I hold that the AO has corr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not file any bills and details, penalty cannot be levied. 5.1 The claim of capital gains was filed in the return of income. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd, [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) has held that if any claim is made in the return of income which is allowed by the AO, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed for disallowance of any claim. 6. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently contends that:- (i) In the valuation report filed by the assessee there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version