2010 (11) TMI 977

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the facts and circumstances of the ITA No. 5950/Mum/2009 (Assessment year 2003-04) 2 case, the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the penalty of ₹ 93,942/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO revised the long term capital gains at ₹ 4,94,909/- instead of capital loss claimed by the assessee. The assessee claimed the capital loss on sale of property of RS.3,30,990/- by showing the sale value of the property of ₹ 26,50,000/-. The AO applied the provisions of section 50C and as per the Stamp Valuing Authority, the property was valued at ₹ 43,48,500/-. Though the valuation of the property was referred to the District Valuation Officer who has determined the value of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ket value was less in compare to the other properties. The assessee has shown the sale value which was actually received by the assessee and recorded in the sale agreement, therefore, it does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income, even if the ITA No. 5950/Mum/2009 (Assessment year 2003-04) 4 sale consideration was adopted as per the Stamp Valuation Authority. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) and the decision of the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT V/s Mrs.N Meenakshi reported in 125 TTJ 856 and the order of the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Prakashchand Nahar V/s ITO repor....