TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... With this appeal, the Assessee has challenged the correctness of the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Surat dated 19.07.2013 pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 39,715/- levied by the A.O. u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has preferred to present its case through written submissions. We heard the ld. D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt sustained by the ld. CIT(A) at Rs. 1,69,050/-. The assessee was asked to show cause why penalty should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee strongly submitted that the additions have been sustained by invoking the legal fiction u/s. 50C of the Act and, therefore, it is neither a case of concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, no penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment has been completed by a legal fiction. 8. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Madan Theatres Ltd. 260 CTR 75 has held:- "that the actual amount received was offered for taxation. It was only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) started. The revenue had failed to produce any iota of evidence that the assessee actually received one pais....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed all the facts of sale, documents/ material before the AO. The AO has not doubted the genuineness of the documents/details furnished by the assessee. Only because the assessee agreed to the additions because of the deeming provisions it cannot be construed to be filing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. The assessee agreed to addition on the basis of valuation made by the sta....