TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not warrant imposition of penalty Attributed sale consideration of ₹ 1 lac to building with cost of acquisition at ₹ 70,085/- and computed capital gain at ₹ 29,912/- - Held that:- It is only a case of estimation of sale consideration of super structure. Admittedly, no separate sale consideration of super structure was assigned in the sale deed. Whereas the assessee estimated ₹ 1 lac as sale consideration of building sold, the Assessing Officer estimated the same at ₹ 32.70 lac, which got finally settled by means of appellate order at ₹ 16.35 lac. These facts indicate that penalty is based on mere estimate. As in CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd.[2010 (1) TMI 32 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see for allowing such expenditure as cost of improvement u/s 48 of the Act. Apart from that, the assessee, in the computation of capital gain, attributed ₹ 1 lac towards constructed portion of building as the premises was sold on consolidated basis comprising of land and building. The Assessing Officer estimated sale consideration relatable to super structure at ₹ 32.70 lac. He accordingly made the addition. The Tribunal reduced the estimate of sale consideration towards constructed portion to ₹ 16.35 lac. The AO imposed penalty of ₹ 18,05,176/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act w.r.t. the above two items. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty in respect of retrenchment compensation paid to employees in terms of agreement to sel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le consideration at ₹ 32.70 lac which amount finally stood reduced to ₹ 16.35 lac by the Tribunal. It is on this basis that the penalty has been imposed and confirmed. 5. As is obvious from the narration of facts that it is only a case of estimation of sale consideration of super structure. Admittedly, no separate sale consideration of super structure was assigned in the sale deed. Whereas the assessee estimated ₹ 1 lac as sale consideration of building sold, the Assessing Officer estimated the same at ₹ 32.70 lac, which got finally settled by means of appellate order at ₹ 16.35 lac. These facts indicate that penalty is based on mere estimate. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
