TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 1032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er is unjustified, illegal and had in law. 2. The order passed by the earned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is required to be quashed in as much as the same is passed without giving a proper opportunity of being he to the appellant. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) committed a gross error of law and fact in coming to the conclusion that the appellant filed inaccurate particulars and therefore liable for the impugned penalty on the ground that it was mandatory on the part of the appellant to adopt the value computed by the stamp authorities as the sales consideration received on the transfer of the immovable property. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) committed a gross error in not appreciating t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e agreement and the valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority. Thus, the addition has been made by the AO by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act. It is evident from the assessment order that the AO has not questioned the actual consideration received by the assessee but the addition is made purely on the basis of deeming provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO has not given any finding that the actual sale consideration is more than the sale consideration admitted and mentioned in the sale agreement. Thus, it does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also not the case of the revenue that the assessee has failed to furnish the relevant record as called by the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration over and above than that declared in the sales deed. The AO has not disputed the consideration received by the assessee. The addition has been made on the basis of deeming provisions of section 50C. The assessee has furnished all the facts of sale, documents/ material before the AO. The AO has not doubted the genuineness of the documents/details furnished by the assessee. Only because the assessee agreed to the additions because of the deeming provisions it cannot be construed to be filing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. The assessee agreed to addition on the basis of valuation made by the stamp valuation authority cannot be a conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per the sale agreement is deemed to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) stand confirmed. In the circumstances, the al)peal of 11w Revenue is dismissed. 4. Mr. Niaumuddin, learned advocate appearing for flu' Revenue, contended that the assessee had a choice to dispute the valuation on the basis of the deemed value, but the assessee did not take that opportunity. The assessee had a choice or he could have litigated. The fact remains that the actual amount received was offered for taxation. It is only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings under s. 271(1)((c) started. The Revenue has failed to produce any iota of evidence that the assessee actually received one paise more than the amount shown to have been received by him. 5. We are, as such, of the opinion that there is no scope to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see had received more amount than that shown by it on sale of property then penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. In the present case also no such case has been made by the Revenue. Therefore, decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court is a direct decision on the issues. 5.1 The decisions relied upon by Ld. DR are not directly on the issue and distinguishable on facts. In the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.,(supra) a sum of Rs. 1,21,49,861/- was debited to administrative and other expenses which was on account of "equipment written off". It was explained by the assessee that due to over sight the said amount was not added back in the computation of income and the same ought to have been adjusted in the block of asset....