TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 50 C of the Act. Even at the time of penalty order there was no unanimity that the provisions of section 50C would be applicable to section 48 only or they would be applicable to section 50 also. Thus, there was difference of opinion about the addition. So in our opinion, penalty was not leviable for such a disputed issue. We find that in the case of Panchiram Nahata (2009 (11) TMI 817 - ITAT KOLKATA ) the Tribunal has held that where it was not in dispute that sold asset was depreciable asset, the AO was not justified in adopting the value as per stamp duty authorities. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A./5314/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2017 - Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member, And Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member For The Appellant : Shri A. K.Nayak,DR For The Assessee : Shri Ali Asgar Rampurwala and Ms. Fonim Mehta-AR ORDER PER RAJENDRA, AM Challenging the order dated 12/05/2014 of the CIT (A)-6,Mumbai, the Assessing Officer(AO) has filed the present appeal. Assessee-company, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of process control instruments, filed its return of income on 27/10/2007, declaring income of ₹ 21,47,56,506/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rani (ITA/ 2210/ Mum/2010, dated 22/12/2010) wherein the Tribunal had, in the similar circumstances, deleted the penalty levied by the AO. He further observed that during the course of assessment proceedings an addition of ₹ 51.25 lakhs was made under the head STCG on sale of building in view of the provisions of section 50C by taking enhanced value of consideration for the property sold as per the stamp duty authorities, that all the facts for computation of income were disclosed by the assessee in its return of income, that penalty proceedings and the assessment proceedings were independent of each other, that it was not a fit case for living penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 4.During the course of hearing before us, the Departmental Representative(DR)stated that the assessee had filed wrong computation of income with regard to STCG, it did not offer any explanation, that the Tribunal had upheld the addition made by the AO while deciding the appeal filed by it. The Authorised Representative (AR) argued that computation was integral part of the return of income, that assessee had sold three properties during the year under consideration, that at the time of filing of returns it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the facts and other relevant portion of the said order and it reads as follow: 2. Briefly the facts are, the assessee a company filed its return of income for the AY. under consideration on 29th November 2006, declaring loss of ₹ 12,80,636, under the normal provisions and book profit of ₹ 73,03,098 under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, on verifying the material on record, found that the assessee, during the relevant previous year, has sold two office premises at Prime Plaza, Santacruz, Mumbai, for a declared sale consideration of ₹ 2,07,90,000, for each of the office premises. Whereas, the Dy. Registrar, Andheri, Mumbai, while registering the sale documents has valued each of the flat at ₹ 2,23,87,054, for stamp duty purpose. Therefore, alleging that sale consideration shown by the assessee is lesser than the market value by ₹ 15,97,054, in respect of each flat the Assessing Officer sought to invoke the provisions ofsection 50C of the Act. Though the assessee objected to invoking the provisions of section 50C, but the Assessing Officer, rejecting assessee& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the issue whether the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority for stamp duty purpose is the actual consideration received by the assessee is a debatable issue in view of the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act. Hence, it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. On the aforesaid observation, he deleted the imposition of penalty. 4. When the case was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, having heard the learned Departmental Representative and on a perusal of the material available on record, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c)(1)(c) of the Act. As can be seen, the addition made on account of short term capital gain was under section 50C, as a result of the valuation made by the stamp valuation authority for stamp duty purpose. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is absolutely clear that in a case BHARAT HOMES LIMITED where the declared sale consideration by the assessee is lesser than the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority for stamp duty purpose such value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
