TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iculars of income or concealment of income on the part of assessee. Thus we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 2183/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 16-11-2016 - Shri R. P. Tolani, JM and Shri Manish Borad, AM. For The Appellant by Shri Mihir D. Gandhi, AR For The Respondent by Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr.DR ORDER PER Manish Borad, Accountant Member . This appeal of the assessee for Asst. Year 2006-07 is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-II, Surat, dated 18.07.2013 in appeal no. CAS-II/86/2012-13 arising out of order u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the Act) framed on 31.3.2011 by DCIT, Cir-2, Surat. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 69B of the Act was deleted whereas addition u/s 50C of the Act towards under valuation of property was sustained at ₹ 27,12,394/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated at the time of framing assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. After the order of ld. CIT(A) on quantum appeal ld. Assessing Officer framed penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposing penalty of ₹ 3,04,330/- on the addition sustained u/s 50C of the Act on ₹ 27,12,394/- by CIT(A). 4. Assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) against the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act but could not succeed. 5. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR submitted that during the Financial Year 2005-06 there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fically ld. AR referred and relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.2177/Ahd/2013 in the case of Mafatlal Nathalal Patel pronounced on 17.08.2016. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. Solitary grievance of the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming penalty of ₹ 3,04,330/- imposed on deemed addition made u/s 50C of the Act. We find that in the case of assessee assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed after making certain addition which also included addition u/s 50C of the Act at ₹ 27,12,394/- made on the basis of deemed consideration calculated by reducing sale conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offered for taxation. It was only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings u/s. 2yi(i)(c) started. The revenue had failed to produce any iota of evidence that the assessee actually received one paise more than the amount shown to have been received by him. Thus, penalty order was liable to be set aside. 9. A similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Chimanlal Manilal Patel. In ITA No. 5o8/Ahd/2oio, the Co-ordinate Bench held as under:- 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is a fact that the addition has been made by the A.O. in the revisionary proceedings. A.Y. 2008-09 The addition has been made on the basis of provisions of section 50C. It is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
