2014 (12) TMI 1169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ll as in law in cancelling the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied at Rs. 22,12,069/- ignoring the fact that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of value adopted for computation of capital gain in view of the mandatory provision of section 50C of the Act." 2. The brief facts relevant to the levy of penalty are that the assessee had transferred / sold office premises to its sister concern for a sale consideration of Rs. 1.55 crores. The Assessing Officer considered the full sale consideration as per stamp duty authority valuation at Rs. 2,00,08,000/- in accordance with the provisions of section 50C of Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition to the Short term Capital Gain. Subsequently, the Ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Renu Hingorani Vs. ACIT (ITA no. 2210/Mum/2010 (ii) CIT Vs. Madan Theatres Ltd. ( Cal. HC) GA No. 684 of 2013, ITAT no. 62 of 2013 (iii) Shri Chimanlal Manilal Patel Vs. ACIT (ITA no. 508/Ahd/2010) (iv) Shri C Basker Vs. ACIT (ITA no. 998/Mds/2012) (v) Shri C Vijayakumar ( ITA no. 998/Mds/ 2012 5. Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record, we note that in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not given any finding that the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee is not actual amount received as per the agreement of sale. The addition was made by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C whereby the full value of con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed. it seems that basic purpose of transfer was to change ownership of office premises from one group concern to other group concern and not to earn any profit/gain from transfer. Had it been transferred to outsiders there might be a case of suspicion. Which is not so in the instant case. Even otherwise mere suspicion is not sufficient to levy penalty. There should be some materialon record to establish that actual sale consideration received by the assessee was much more than the sale consideration shown in the sale agreement. The facts and issue of the instant case are identical with the facts and issue of the case of Renu Hingorani Vs. CIT. On careful consideration of the said decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT, immediate....