TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P) Ltd. on 14th Sept., 2003 for an amount of Rs. 6.4 crores. The income-tax computation showed that the fair market value as on 1981 was adopted at Rs. 19,76,500. In response to enquiry, the assessee's representative explained that since it is an inherited property, there was no cost of acquisition incurred by the assessee. Hence, they approached the registered valuer, Shri K. Rajagopalan and obtained a valuation report stating that the market value of the property in 1981 in P.H. Road was Rs. 60,000 per ground. Hence the value of the land worked out to Rs. 10,31,075 and the old building that existed on the land was valued at Rs. 9,45,410 as on 1981. The total value of the property has been arrived at Rs. 19,76,476. 4. The AO was not in ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifferent value. The assessee had claimed the fair market value of the property as on 1st April, 1981 based on the report of the registered valuer. The assessee had correctly disclosed the area of the land and building while estimating the fair market value as on 1st April, 1981. Merely because there was difference in the fair market value of land and building, it cannot be said that there is a case for imposition of penalty. The expression 'conceal' is of great importance and it signifies a deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee. In this case, it cannot be said that the assessee deliberately withheld any information from the AO which was detected by him. Similarly, it cannot be said that the assessee misled the AO by giving ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) has failed to note that the assessee has not only accepted the value adopted in the assessment but also admitted higher value before the Hon'ble High Court and that the disclosure before any judicial authority is to be treated as statement made on oath. - The CIT(A) ought to have noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2007) 212 CTR (SC) 432 has held that its decision in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 228 : (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) relied on by the assessee in this case needs reconsideration by a Larger Bench. - The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee, having enjoyed the assistance of tax consultants, cannot plead ignorance for n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s office, it cannot be said that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment so as to attract penalty under s. 271(1)(c). 9. The decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors & Ors. (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 617 : (2008) 14 DTR (SC) 114 : (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) is not applicable on the facts of the case as the same is applicable only when there is furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment by the assessee which leads to addition of income. Similarly, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court case law relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative is also found not applicable on the facts of the case. Hon'ble apex Court in the case of CIT vs. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed shall, for the purposes of s. 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-s. (1), where- (a) the assessee claims before any AO that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-s. (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-s. (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, Court or the High Court. the AO may refer the valuation of the capital asset....