TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been brought either by way of inquiry by the AO or some tangible information has into his knowledge that the purchase consideration of ₹ 38,50,000/- for the plot No. D-101 is less or assessee has paid extra than what has been mentioned in the registered sale document, then no penalty for either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars can be levied. Though section 69B is a deeming fiction but in the matter of penalty proceedings, such deeming fiction cannot be extended so as to hold assessee guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars when the addition on account of deeming fiction is based on some kind of estimate given by a Govt. Valuer. If nothing incriminating is found again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned investment u/s 69B: ₹ 3,90,696/- 2. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Tribunal vide order dated 6.9.2013 in ITA No. 4280/Del/2010 in the quantum proceedings has deleted the addition on account of deemed dividend and therefore, the penalty on this addition should be deleted. 3. On the issue of addition of ₹ 3,98,696/- made u/s 69B, Ld. Counsel submitted that the same has been made on account of difference of value as shown in the registered sale deed and the estimate made by the Valuation Officer of the department for determining the value of the plot purchased by the assessee. The assessee has purchased two plots from M/s. Nalini Sarees, the details of which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncealment of income, because the purchase value is flowing from the sale deed and there is no other material on record to show that assessee has paid any sum over and above the value shown in the registered document. Merely because there was a difference of circle rate and estimate by the DVO, there cannot be the ground for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). He further submitted that AO while initiating the penalty proceedings had not specified the charge as to under which limb of the provision of section 271(1)(c) he is initiating the penalty. This he pointed out is evident from the assessment order, wherein he has tried to levy the penalty for both the charges, i.e., concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer to whom reference was made by the AO in terms of section 142A. The assessee had purchased two properties on 21.10.2005, the description of which has already been incorporated above. The location of the plots was adjacent and size was also the same. Since there was a difference in the value of both the plots, the matter was referred to the Valuation Officer by the AO who had estimated the value at ₹ 42,40,960/-. The assessee s contention before the authorities below was that the agreement to sell for both the properties was entered at different times and the locational advantage for both the plots were entirely different and this was demonstrated vide letter dated 5.1.2008 before the AO. The valuation report was rebutted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est that assessee has made any kind of extra payment for the purchase of the plots. The addition has been made purely on the basis of the estimate given by the Valuation Officer and the value of the transaction shown in the registered sale document. If no material has been brought either by way of inquiry by the AO or some tangible information has into his knowledge that the purchase consideration of ₹ 38,50,000/- for the plot No. D-101 is less or assessee has paid extra than what has been mentioned in the registered sale document, then no penalty for either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars can be levied. Though section 69B is a deeming fiction but in the matter of penalty proceedings, such deeming fiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
