Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable where the addition arose from section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of difference between purchase price and stamp duty value of property.
Analysis: The addition was made on a deeming basis under section 56(2)(x) and there was no finding that the assessee had actually paid any amount over and above the stated consideration. The assessee had given an explanation that the property was of low utility and could not fetch the jantri value, and the Revenue neither found that explanation false nor established that it was not bona fide. No effective inquiry or verification was undertaken to rebut the explanation, and the surrender was made to buy peace of mind without admitting concealment in substance.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable and was deleted.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the penalty imposed on the deemed addition was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be sustained where the addition rests only on a deeming provision, the assessee offers a plausible explanation, and the Revenue fails to disprove bona fides or establish actual suppression of income.