TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee voluntarily did not disclosed accurate/complete particulars of his income." 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold two pieces of land at village Jai Singh Pura. In respect of the first piece of land which was sold for Rs. 23,04,000, the assessee declared a loss of Rs. 1,76,000 and in respect of second piece of land which was sold for Rs. 75,00,000, short term capital gains of Rs. 99,400 was reported in the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was thereafter completed at returned income of Rs. 64,03,650/-. Subsequently, the ld. AO received information in respect to one of the pieces of land that stamp duty authority valued the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deleted the levy of penalty and has given his finding which are reproduced as under: "I have considered the facts of the case, penalty order and appellants' submissions. The AO made addition u/s 50C on the amount of difference between sale consideration and valuation made by stamp duty authority. AOI levied penalty for concealment of income on this addition. As against this, appellant relied upon several decisions in his submission quoted earlier including decision of Bombay ITAT on the issue in the case of Renu Hingorani. Relevant extract of the said order is quoted below: "We find that the AO had made addition of Rs. 9,00,824/- being difference between the sale consideration as per the sale agreement and the valuation made by the st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicable to the facts of the appellant's case, penalty levied by the AO is deleted." 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee at the time of filing the original return was not knowing the implications of provisions of section 50C of IT Act and therefore, in the original return, he declared actual sale consideration(s) which he received from said transfers. In course of original assessment completed u/s 143(3) all the documents relating to sale of property were duly submitted to Assessing officer and thereafter he accepted the returned income. However, when assessee received notice u/s 148 in respect to sale of one piece of land pointing out provisions of section 50C of IT Act, 1961 and diffe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2012 * ACIT vs. Mrs. N. Meenakshi ITA No. 508/Mad/2008 dated 13.02.2009 (Chennai Bench) The appeal order of ld. CIT(A) is by following various judgements of ITAT and High court and the appeal order is detailed and reasoned which deserves to be upheld. The appeal filed by department has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. 2.4 The ld DR is heard who has submitted that ld CIT(A) has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in case of Renu Hingorani but the facts of the two cases are not identical. In the case of Renu Hingorani, the assessee filed a return and declared sale consideration as received. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO enquired about the difference in sale c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment proceedings. It is interesting to note that the registered sale deeds submitted before the Assessing officer contains the sale consideration taken for stamp duty purposes, however the application of section 50C was not considered during the original assessment proceedings. This also shows the lack of awareness not just on the part of the assessee but also on the part of the Assessing officer. The same therefore cannot be basis for levy of penalty. The moot question which remains is whether the assessee has received any sale consideration over and above what has been disclosed in the sale deeds and reported in the original return of income. There is no adverse finding by the Assessing officer to this effect and it thus become clear ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 section 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." 2.8 It would be equally relevant to note the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Fortune Hotels and Estates (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 330 (Bombay) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "3. To this extent there is no dispute and what later on followed was the imposition of penalty. The Tribun....