9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,60,00,000/-; respectively, in proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". 2. The assessee's sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of the above impugned penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer as upheld in the two lower appellate orders forming subject matter of adjudication before us. It emerges that the main issue leading to imposition of the above identical penalty is that of cost of acquisition of its immovable properties (capital assets sold) as on 01.04.1981 in the two impugned assessment years. Both parties inform us in the course of hearing that former assessment year 2008- 09 involves assessee's industrial land comprised in City Survey No. 383, admeasuring 28430.58 sq.mtrs. situated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... termed the same as not correct since it did not indicate the plot of land concern as commercial in nature in specific wordings. He therefore summoned assessee's valuer for necessary cross examination. This followed numerous opportunities. The abovestated valuer appears to have turned up on 29.12.2010. The assessing authority then sought to know the relevant basis of Rs. 2050/- per sq.mtr. rate as on 01.04.1981 alongwith supportive documents. This valuer thereafter did not produce himself for further cross examination except for reiterating contents of his report submitted earlier. This made the Assessing Officer to proceed with the impugned valuation issue after taking support of the relevant evidence. He first of all considered a loan tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h assessee and Revenue filed their respective appeals ITA No. 2786/Ahd/2012 and ITA No.35/Ahd/2013 before this tribunal. A co-ordinate bench therein enhanced the above valuation from Rs. 550/- per sq.mtr. to Rs. 980/- per sq.mtr. in order dated 11.04.2016. This order forms part of the case record at from page 703 of the paper book to 728. Learned co-ordinate bench therein observes as under: "4.1. During the course of appellate proceedings, an alternate plea was also raised by the assessee that the average rate of Rs. 1,940/- per sq.mtr. may be adopted being the average of two different rates adopted by the assessee on one hand and the Revenue on the other hand. Admittedly, in the present case, neither the AO nor the ld.CIT(A) called for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stimation of fair market value as on 01/04/1981 is to be made on the basis of material on record. The Valuer in earlier year, had adopted a higher rate of fair market value and in the subsequent year, he adopted a lower rate. Therefore, the valuation adopted by the Government Approved Valuer, cannot be adopted as the valuation is made solely on the basis of potential of the land but not on the basis of the actual prevalent rate in the close vicinity. The Revenue has also not placed any material on record, demonstrating the prevalent market rate as on 01/04/1981 in the close vicinity of the land in question. The AO has adopted the cost of acquisition as on 01/04/1981 at Rs. 250/- per sq.mtr. and the ld.CIT(A) adopted the cost of acquisition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on 01.04.1981 in question amounted to furnishing of inaccurate particulars resulting in concealment of its income in the nature of consequential long term capital gains to be computed by adopting the above rate as the cost of acquisition. He thus imposed the penalty under challenge of Rs. 5,33,00,000/- @ 100% of the alleged concealed income. The CIT(A) however modifies the same to the extent of this tribunal's quantum findings (supra). This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 7. We have heard both the learned representatives strongly reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned penalty imposed on account of long term capital gains addition being re-computed by the Assessing Officer reducing assessee's rate from R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry well considers all other advantageous factors of civic as well as industrial amenities to arrive at the valuation in question claimed at assessee's behest. There is no dispute that the Assessing Officer thereafter reduced this valuation by citing sale instances of the relevant era i.e. in the years 1981 and 1982 to drastically reduce the assessee's rate of Rs. 2050/- per sq.mtr. to Rs. 250/- only. The fact however remains that he has not considered even a single sale deed pertaining to any commercial or industrial plot as is the one involved in the instant lis. We further repeat that the said reduced rate stands enhanced to Rs. 550/- per sq.mtr. in quantum lower appeal and to that @Rs.980/- per sq.mtr. in this tribunal (supra). It is thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
