TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 1066
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax (Appeals), deserve to be deleted." 2. The sole ground of appeal is against confirming the imposition penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 68,116/-. The assessee filed return on 21/12/2009 at Rs. 39,930/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee had sold industrial plot No. H-473-474, MIA, Alwar on 21/06/2007 at Rs. 8 lacs whereas DLC value was decided by the Registrar of Stamp at Rs. 12,35,730/-. The assessee had shown capital gain on Rs. 8 lacs not as per Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) at Rs. 12,35,730/-. Therefore, there was a short assessment of capital gain by Rs. 4,35,730/-. The Assessing Officer after recording the reasons U/s 147 on 27/3/2010 had reopened the case and issue notice U/s 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h is 100% of tax sought to be evaded on concealed income. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A), who had confirmed the addition by observing as under: - "(g) I find that the plea taken by the ld. AR that the assessee was not agreed to the value adopted by the registrar and thought of referring to the valuation officer for valuation of capital asset is not borne out by the evidence on record since in the computation of total income, as per the original return filed, the appellant has clearly stated the value u/s 50C at Rs. 8 lacs as against the value determined at Rs. 1235730/- for stamp duty purpose by the registrar. Further, the appellant has not given ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uting the capital gain as per the value u/s 50C at Rs. 1235730/-. (k) I have considered the cases relied upon by the ld. AR. In the case reported as CIT Vs. Suresh Chand Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC) and CIT Vs. Carreers Education and Infotech Pvt. Ltd. 336 ITR 257 (P&H), the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) was deleted for the reason that the revenue did not discharge its burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. In this regard reference is made to the order of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 22/07/2009 in the case of Prem Pal Gandhi Vs. CIT reported as 335 ITR 23 in which the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed after considering a number of decisions on this issue including the judgment reported as 251 ITR 9 (S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty U/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed where the income under the head capital gain is assessed U/s 50C by deeming the value assessed by the stamp authorities as the full value of consideration for the purpose of section 48. This issue is well settled by the various courts wherein it has been held that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable where income is assessed on the basis of deemed consideration u/s 50C as revenue has failed to produce any evidence that assessee actually receives more than the amount shown to have been received by the assessee. He relied on the decision in the case of Chimanlal Manilal Patel Vs. ACIT 33 CCH 647 (Ahd.)(Trib.) wherein identical penalty was imposed on the basis of difference in capital gain U/s 50C....