9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstance of the case, the CIT(A) has grossed erred - in accepting the unlawful act of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Surat (herein after refer as learned AO) of levying penalty amounting to Rs. 3,04,330/- u/s. 27l(l)(c) on deemed addition arising u/s. 50C. in confirming the penalty even though the subject case was squarely covered matter and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) on deemed addition arising u/s. 50C in many cases. in not following the principles of judicial discipline. 2. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify any or all the above grounds of appeal, if necessary, on the basis of submissions to be made at the time of personal he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration as per agreement was at Rs. 73,95,206/- whereas the jantri price adopted by Dy. Collector for the purpose of charging Stamp Duty was taken at Rs. 10107600/-. The difference of the jantri price as against sale consideration came to Rs. 27,12,394/-. It was considered as deemed differentiated consideration by ld. Assessing Officer u/s 50C of the Act. Ld. AR further submitted that the impugned transaction for sale of land were carried out at fair market value on the basis of sale rate adopted for land situated nearby. Further no evidence was brought on record by ld. Assessing Officer to prove that assessee has received consideration over and above the agreement value and the addition has been made merely on the basis of jantri price. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned addition of Rs. 27,12,394/- was merely based on the calculation made by ld. Assessing Officer taking jantri price as against sale price shown by the assessee. At any point of time Revenue has not placed on record any material evidence to show that the assessee has received consideration over and above the agreement value. Penalty of Rs. 3,04,330/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been imposed on the addition confirmed u/s 50C of the Act. We further observe that similar type of facts came up before the Coordinate Bench in the case of Mafatlal Nathalal Patel vs. DCIT (supra) wherein penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Coordinate bench by observing as under :- 7. We find that in its return of income, the assessee has sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The AO has not disputed the consideration received by the assessee. The addition has been made on the basis of deeming provisions of section 50C. The assessee has furnished all the facts of sale, documents/ material before the AO. The AO has not doubted the genuineness of the documents/details furnished by the assessee. Only because the assessee agreed to the additions because of the deeming provisions it cannot be construed to be filing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. The assessee agreed to addition on the basis of valuation made by the stamp valuation authority cannot be a conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per the sale agreement is seemed to be incorrect and wrong. In view of these facts we are of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
