2015 (6) TMI 1066 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee wins appeal, penalty under Income Tax Act not applicable

Anita Beniwal Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (4), Alwar.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, ruling that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable due to lack of ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - income under the head capital gain is assessed U/s 50C by deeming the value assessed by the stamp authorities as the full value of consideration for the purpose of section 48 - Held that:- The assessee had shown sale consideration at ₹ 8 lacs whereas as per Section 50C of the Act, the Stamp Authority has assessed the value of property at ₹ 12,35,730/-, there was difference at ₹ 4,75,658/- in the capital gain, which has been accepted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. There is no evidence with the revenue to prove that the assessee has received much more than reflected in the return. The addition was on account of deeming provision, therefore, we delete the penalty confirmed by the ld CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:- Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act- Assessment of capital gain based on Section 50C valuation- Dispute over the valuation of property- Concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particularsAnalysis:1. The appeal was filed against the order imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for an amount of Rs. 68,116. The assessee had sold an industrial plot for Rs. 8 lakhs, while the Stamp Authority assessed the value at Rs. 12,35,730, resulting in a difference in capital gain. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income.2. The Assessing Officer considered that the assessee had concealed income despite the assessee's claim of disclosing the capital gain as per Section 50C and paying tax accordingly. The Assessing Officer relied on previous court decisions to support the imposition of the penalty based on the concealed income amount.3. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition and penalty, noting that the assessee did not dispute the valuation by the Stamp Authority initially and paid tax on capital gains only after a query letter was issued. The CIT(A) found that the revised return filed by the assessee could not be considered as a revised return within the meaning of the Act. The CIT(A) concluded that there was a motive to conceal income based on the initial return filed.4. The assessee appealed, arguing that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when income is assessed based on deemed consideration under Section 50C. The assessee cited court decisions where penalties were deleted due to lack of evidence showing actual receipt of higher amounts than declared.5. The Tribunal considered the arguments and found that the revenue had not provided evidence that the assessee had received more than the declared amount. Since the difference in capital gain was due to deeming provisions, the Tribunal decided to delete the penalty imposed by the CIT(A).6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, stating that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable in this case due to the lack of evidence showing actual receipt of higher amounts than declared. The penalty imposed by the CIT(A) was deleted.7. The Tribunal pronounced the order in favor of the assessee on 05/06/2015, allowing the appeal and deleting the penalty.