TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Rs. 27 lacs and not as per DLC rate of Rs. 1,08,91,151/- applied by the Registrar and adopted by the AO u/s 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring income at Rs. 1,40,938/- after claiming deduction under section 80C at Rs. 38,666/- filed on 30.10.2006. A notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 03.07.2008 which was duly served upon the assessee and in response the assessee vide letter dated 24.07.2008 has stated that the return filed on 30.10.2006 may be treated as filed in compliance to above said notice. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 12.10.2009. In response t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder in view of provisions of section 155(15) of the Income-tax Act which reads as follows :- " Where in the assessment for any year, a capital gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is computed by taking the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer to be the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 50C, and subsequently such value is revised in any appeal or revision or reference referred to in clause (b) of sub section (2) of that section, the Assessing Officer shall amend the order of assessment so as to compute the capital gain by takin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11.07.2012. On this date neither anybody attended nor any written reply has been filed. Therefore, the order passed u/s 143(3)/148/251 for the A.Y. 2006-07 dated 18.07.2011 is rectified u/s 155(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which speaks as under - "Where in the assessment for any year, a capital gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is computed by taking the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer to be the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 50C, and subsequently such value is revised in any appeal or revision or reference referred to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is apparent that the various issues involved regarding the quantum have already been dealt and decided by my predecessor. The same issues can not be reviewed or reagitated at the CIT (A) stage. So, the submissions made by the AO regarding quantum addition can not be considered at this stage as it will amount to review of the earlier appellate order which is not permissible in law. The only point of grievance arising out of the order of the AO dated 12.10.2012 is that AO should not have determined the valuation before finalization by higher form. The assessee has pointed out that the issue against valuation of property is pending before Rajasthan Tax Board Ajmer. However, it is apparent from the order of the AO that assessee had mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T. Act. The assessee has also submitted the copy of decisions in case of CIT vs. Madan Theatres Ltd. ITAT No. 62 of 2013 dated 14.05.2013, late Sh. Pratap Chand Jain ITA No. 1074/JP/2010, Renu Hingorani vs. ACIT ITA No 2210/Mum/2010, V.H. Gupta, Mumbai vs. Assessee ITA No. 5950/Mum/2009, Jagdish Daswsani, Mumbai vs. Assessessee ITA No. 4181/Mum/2011, C. Vijayakumar, Karur vs. Assessee ITA No 997/MDS/2012 in support of his contentions. In such context, issue regarding levy of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been decided by Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in ITA No 2210/Mumbai/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 in the case of Renu Hingorani vs ACIT, Range 19 (3) as under :- "8. We have considered the rival contentions and relevant record. We find that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the deeming provisions does not ipso facto attract the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Hence in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd (supra), the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable. The same is deleted." Above view is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT Kol-IV vs. Madan Theatres Ltd. in GA No. 684 of 2013, ITT No. 62 of 2013 where decision of ITAT deleting the penalty levied on the basis of stamp duty valuation was upheld. In view of above discussion, the penalty is not leviable on the basis of value adopted by the Registration Authority for the registration purposes. However, in the present case as p....