TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144(C) (13) of the Act on 20/09/2011,determining its income at Rs. 31,07,81,998/-. 2.Effective ground of appeal is about deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.During the assessment proceedings the AO made disallowances/additions under the heads Transfer Pricing adjustments (Rs. 9.08 crores) and Short-Term Capital Gains(Rs. 31.75 lakhs). The matter travelled up to the Tribunal. Vide its order, dated 25/07/2012, the Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment and confirmed the addition on account of competition of STCG u/s. 50 read with section 50C of the Act. The AO had initiated penalty proceedings alleging that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and had conceale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee held a diverse view on allowability of a claim for deduction.He also referred to the case of Renu Hingorani (ITA/ 2210/ Mum/2010, dated 22/12/2010) wherein the Tribunal had, in the similar circumstances, deleted the penalty levied by the AO. He further observed that during the course of assessment proceedings an addition of Rs. 51.25 lakhs was made under the head STCG on sale of building in view of the provisions of section 50C by taking enhanced value of consideration for the property sold as per the stamp duty authorities, that all the facts for computation of income were disclosed by the assessee in its return of income, that penalty proceedings and the assessment proceedings were independent of each other, that it was not a fit cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee.Thus,in our opinion,prima facie the assessee had not concealed any particular of income.There was difference of opinion between the AO and the assessee about the treatment to be given to the amount in question.No authority is required to be cited to hold that assessment and penalty proceedings are two independent proceedings and that quantum addition should not and cannot result in automatic levy of concealment penalty.The AO is required to consider the explanation filed by the assessee during the penalty proceedings to decide the levy of penalty. If a claim made by an assessee is not permissible legally, it cannot be held that by lodging such a claim it had filed inaccurate particulars. In the case under consideration, the AO ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2,23,87,054, for stamp duty purpose. Therefore, alleging that sale consideration shown by the assessee is lesser than the market value by Rs. 15,97,054, in respect of each flat the Assessing Officer sought to invoke the provisions ofsection 50C of the Act. Though the assessee objected to invoking the provisions of section 50C, but the Assessing Officer, rejecting assessee's contention, invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act and considered the total sale consideration for the two flats of Rs. 4,47,74,108, being the value adopted by the registering authority for stamp duty purpose. This resulted in addition of Rs. 31,94,108, as short BHARAT HOMES LIMITED term capital gain. Being aggrieved of such addition, though the assessee pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OMES LIMITED that making of an legally inadmissible claim by itself would not lead to a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee, observed that the assessee has furnished all particulars of the transactions relating to the sale of the property as well as value adopted by the stamp valuation authority. Hence, question of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income does not arise. Further, he observed that the issue whether the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority for stamp duty purpose is the actual consideration received by the assessee is a debatable issue in view of the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act. Hence,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer has to prove the fact that the assessee actually received as sale consideration, the amount determined as the value for stamp duty purpose. There is not even a single evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer which could even remotely establish that the assessee has received anything over and above the declared sale consideration. Merely because the addition was made by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act on the basis of value determined by the stamp valuation authority, the assessee cannot be saddled with penalty under section 271(1)(c)(1)(c) of the Act either for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. Moreover, in the present case, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalt....