TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was sold for a consideration of Rs. 8 crores. The assessee adopted the cost of acquisition as on April 1, 1981, at Rs. 2,25,00,000 as per the report dated June 25, 1996, of the registered valuer. The report of the registered valuer based on which the assessee declared long-term capital loss was not found acceptable since as per the Department's Valuation Officer, the fair market value of the assessee's share in the property as on April 1, 1981, was at Rs. 1,44,92,907 as against Rs. 2,52,00,000, shown by the assessee. The Assessing Officer accordingly, rejected the assessee's contention that the fair market value of the property as on April 1, 1981, was Rs. 2,52,00,000 for computing the long-term capital gains. Rather, the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 520 and the judgment of the learned single judge of this court in the case of Lachman Chaturbhuj Java v. R. G. Nitsure [1981] 132 ITR 631. We are not persuaded by the submission of learned counsel for the assessee. The Revenue authorities as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have concurrently held that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars. This finding is based on the aspect that the valuation report submitted by the assessee did not reflect the correct cost of acquisition. What is the market value of the property as on April 1, 1981, is an aspect of fact and the value furnished by the assessee was held to be factually incorrect. If the computation of the long-term capital gains by the assessee was found to be wrong obv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a registered valuer which is found by the Revenue authorities to have been prepared without due regard to the accepted principles of valuation. The rules enjoin upon a registered valuer to make an impartial and true valuation of any asset which he is required to value. The Revenue authorities have recorded the finding that all was not well with the valuation made by the registered valuer and significant omissions on the part of the registered valuer have been brought on record inasmuch as even the sale instances relevant for the purpose of valuation had not been relied upon by the registered valuer. The valuation made by the DVO, on the other hand, is on the basis of the relevant sale instances. Records do not show that either the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the DVO as per accepted norms of valuation which valuation has been accepted by the assessee. 14. As stated earlier, a perusal of the orders of the Revenue authorities will make it abundantly clear that the impugned penalty has been levied upon the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the main clause of section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer has incidentally mentioned that further, Explanation 1 to the section also applies to the case. This by itself would not vitiate the penalty order. Therefore, reliance by the learned counsel for the assessee on the decision in the case of P. M. Shah [1993] 203 ITR 792 (Bom) is misplaced. In that case the assessment year involved was 1967-68. In the assessment proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded the finding which reads: 'Considering the above facts I am of the view that the appellant by way of procuring such a report and relying upon it as the basis of computation of income has furnished inaccurate particulars in terms of section 271(1)(c)'. It may be stated that after the hearing was over an affidavit of Shri Natwarlal D. Shroff, karta of the Hindu undivided family sworn on January 18, 2001, was filed in the Registry with the request that the same may be taken on record and be considered. It is, inter alia, deposed therein that the deponent had honestly and completely relied upon the professional advice in the matter of valuation of the property and the filing of the income-tax return. It is undisputed that the burde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. In that case the amount of which addition was agreed to by the assessee was an amount which had been set out in an enclosure filed along with the assessee's return of income and it was in this background it was held that the assessee's agreeing to the addition of the amount by itself did not establish fraud or wilful neglect without something more. The facts of the assessee's case are totally different as set out earlier." The consideration of the matter by the Tribunal is concluded on facts and cannot be said to suffer from any error of law. The two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel have no application to the facts of the present case. Substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed in limine. - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
