2010 (12) TMI 795

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; 3. Facts leading to this penalty are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold two flats bearing no.101 and 102 at Mangalgyan and one f lat at Navmeghdoot . As far as the sale consideration for the two flats at Mangalgyan is concerned the same was more than the value for Stamp valuation . However , the sale consideration for the f lat at Navmeghdoot has been shown at Rs.63 lakhs. Whereas the stamp valuation of the said f lat was at Rs.72,00,824/ -. Thus, there was a difference of Rs.9,00,824/ -. The AO asked the assessee to show cause as to why this difference should not be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The assessee's representative had agreed for the same and accordingly the said sum of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enalty can be levied against the addition made by applying the deeming provisions of law. He has relied upon the various decisions on the point of agreed addition and submitted that agreed addition does not war rant penalty automatically. Sales valuation adopted as per the stamp valuation authority and giving rise to the addition does not warrant penalty. The learned AR also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Petro products Pvt .Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158(SC) and submitted that merely because the claim of the assessee was not al lowed by applying the provisions of law does not at tract the penalty u/s 271(1) ( c ). The ld. AR submitted that explaining the relevant fact includes the product....