TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO to delete the addition by invoking the provisions of section 50C. - Decided in favour of assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Assessee not complying with notice issued u.s 142(1) - HELD THAT:- As penalty has been imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) for not complying with the notices issued dated 19/01/2015 by the AO u/s 142(1) of the Act. We find from the order of the AO that assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30/03/2015 and in the assessment order, the AO has not recorded any satisfaction for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - similar issue has been decided in the case of Globus Infocom Ltd[ 2016 (6) TMI 1304 - ITAT DELHI] wherein held that if the assessment order has been passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, penalty cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the SRO for the purpose of Stamp Duty is ₹ 12,37,00,000/- as against ₹ 6,68,50,000/- shown by the assessee. Similarly, the FMV of the property located at Kachiguda fixed by the SRO for the purpose of stamp duty is ₹ 13,26,000/- as against ₹ 13,12,000/- shown by the assessee. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee as to why the provisions of Section 50C should not be invoked. The assessee replied as under: a) The Assessee has received ₹ 20,92,500/- towards her share out of the total sale consideration of ₹ 6,68,50,000/- which has been duly admitted in the return of income for the year under consideration. b) Though the value of the impugned property as per the stamp valuation Authority i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appeal before the ITAT. 6. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that similar issue came up for consideration before the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rajitha Dubbaka in ITA No. 1508/Hyd/2017 for AY 2012-13 vide order dated 08/06/2021, a copy of which is placed on record. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of revenue authorities and neither controverted the submissions of the assessee nor brought any contrary decision in this regard. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. In the case of Rajitha Dubbaka cited supra, the coordinate bench has held as under: 2.The assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. We, therefore, delete the impugned Long Term Gains addition in issue amounting to ₹ 28,42,500/-for this precise reason alone. All other pleadings on merits are rendered infructuous. 8.1 Since the issue in dispute is materially identical to that of the said decision, respectfully following the same, we direct the AO to delete the addition of ₹ 41,04,732/- by invoking the provisions of section 50C. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed. 9. As regards the appeal in ITA NO. 1280/Hyd/2017, the AO levied penalty of ₹ 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) for the reason that the assessee has not complied with the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30/03/2015 and in the assessment order, the AO has not recorded any satisfaction for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. We find that similar issue has been decided by the ITAT, Delhi Benches in the case of Globus Infocom Ltd Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 738/Del/2014, order dated 29/06/2016. wherein the coordinate bench has held as under: 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- 2.4 Coming to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
