Tribunal cancels penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, directs removal, assessee appeal partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was not justified regarding the fair market value estimation and the year of taxability issues. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Allegation of concealment of income by way of capital gain and furnishing inaccurate particulars.
3. Dispute over the fair market value (FMV) of the property as on 01.04.1981.
4. Dispute over the year of taxability of income.
5. Limitation for passing the penalty order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be confirmed. The penalty was imposed due to the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of long-term capital gain on the sale of land. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty but reduced it to Rs. 12,76,62,859. The Tribunal examined whether the penalty was justified based on the facts and legal precedents.

2. Allegation of Concealment of Income and Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars:
The AO imposed the penalty on the grounds that the assessee concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars by inflating the FMV of the property as on 01.04.1981 and not offering the capital gain in the correct assessment year. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed all facts correctly and that the FMV was supported by a Registered Valuer's Report. The Tribunal emphasized that a mere disagreement with the AO on FMV or the year of taxability does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

3. Dispute over the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the Property as on 01.04.1981:
The assessee adopted an FMV of Rs. 1230 per sq.mtr. based on a Valuation Report, while the AO adopted Rs. 15.23 per sq.mtr. The Tribunal, in the quantum proceedings, directed the FMV to be Rs. 665 per sq.mtr. The Tribunal referenced its earlier decision in the assessee's case for AY 2005-06, where similar FMV issues were involved, and no penalty was levied. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty should be imposed for differences in FMV estimation, as it is a matter of opinion and estimation.

4. Dispute over the Year of Taxability of Income:
The AO taxed the capital gain in AY 2007-08 based on a Development Agreement dated 19.03.2007, while the assessee offered it in AY 2008-09. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared the capital gain in AY 2008-09 and paid advance tax. The Tribunal highlighted that the difference in the year of taxability is a debatable issue and does not justify a penalty. The Tribunal cited legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., to support its view that a mere incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.

5. Limitation for Passing the Penalty Order:
The assessee argued that the penalty order dated 27.05.2011 was barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal referred to the Madras High Court's judgment in Rayala Corporation P. Ltd., which clarified that the limitation period is six months from the end of the month in which the Tribunal's order is received by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal found that the penalty order was within the limitation period and dismissed the assessee's additional ground on this issue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified for both the FMV estimation and the year of taxability issues. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the penalty imposed. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced on 10th April, 2015.

---