TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the AO to disclose the primary facts. The assessee has furnished all the relevant facts, documents/ material including the sale agreement and the AO has not doubted the genuineness and validity of the documents produced before him and the sale consideration received by the assessee. Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee has not furnished correct particulars of income. Merely because the assessee agreed for addition on the basis of valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority would not be a conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per this agreement was incorrect and wrong - Hence the addition because of the deeming provisions does not ipso facto attract the penalty u/s 271(1) (c ). See Renu Hin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the facts of the case and under the law, the impugned penalty order is bad. 2. That the ld CIT(A) had denied natural justice to the appellant. 3. That the ld ClT(A) had proceeded to dismiss the appeal , on the incorrect finding that the appellant had not contested the addition made and thus the assessment order had become final. (the appeal against the assessment order was pending as on that date). 4. That on the facts of the case an under the law, the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is liable to be quashed / annulled, because the charge was not specific. The ld. A.O. had initiated penalty proceedings vide notice dt. 27.03.2015 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271, by simply placing tick mark against the' printed lin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinted line you have without reasonable failed to comply with a notice u/s. 23(4)/ 23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or u/s. 142(1)/143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 4. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) was not leviable. 5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) is liable to be deleted, because no specific date of non compliance was mentioned. 6. That on the facts o f the case and under the law, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) is liable to be deleted, because the non compliance was unintentional, as the assessee s father (who used to look after the matters relating to income tax and follow up with the professional) was term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or furnished any details as required vide notices issued under section 142(1) and 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, the AO worked out the taxable capital gain at ₹ 31,63,066/- in which the share of the assessee was determined at ₹ 6,32,613/- and by considering the income declared in return of income dated 27.3.2008 the total income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 7,14,783/-. The AO, thereafter, imposed penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act by observing that as per Explanation-1 of Section 271(1) of the Act the assessee has failed to offer any explanation vide his order dated 29.9.2015. Aggrieved by order of the AO, the Assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 15.9.2016 has uph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,00,824/- being difference between the sale consideration as per sale agreement and the valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority. Thus, the addition has been made by the AO by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act. It is evident from the assessment order that the AO has not questioned the actual consideration received by the assessee provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO has not given any finding that the actual sale consideration is more than the sale consideration admitted and mentioned in the income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also not the case of the revenue that the assessee has failed to furnish the relevant record as called by the AO to disclose the primary facts. The assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ACIT, Mumbai, the penalty in dispute is deleted and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 10. With regard to ITA No. 5852/Del/2016 (2007-08) is concerned, I find considerable cogency in the submissions of the assessee s counsel that the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(b) is liable to be quashed/ annulled, because the charge was not specific in the Notice dated 27.3.2015 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271, in which AO has simply placed tick mark against the printed line you have without reasonable failed to comply with a notice u/s. 23(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or u/s. 142(1)/143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated .. . Hence, the penalty in dispute deserves to be deleted. Even otherwise , I find that non-complianc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
