TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 28-05-2012 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of not disclosing the capital gain as computed by the AO on the basis of value adopted by stamp duty valuation authority for registering the sale deed. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings on perusal of ITS details noticed that the assessee has purchased an immovable property and sold the same but no capital gain was declared in the return of income. The assessee stated that he has purchased Flat No. 1701 at Orchid Tower vide agreement dated 16-04-2008 for a consideration of Rs. 32,71,876/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately on the above issue for concealment & I furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. In between the AO also referred the property for ascertaining fair market value in term of section 50C(2) of the Act to the DVO, the DVO vide his report dated 29.-09-2012 (after the date of assessment order 30- 11-2011) ascertain the fair market value of the property at Rs. 44,97,000/- as against the declared value of the property at Rs. 29,43,996/-. The AO started the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty for concealment of income on the differential value of the property because by that time the DVO's report was not received and hence, he levied the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the fair market value of the property determined by the DVO at Rs. 44,97,000/-, worked out short term capital gain at Rs. 12,25,124/- and accordingly directed the AO to computed the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. However, on the same reason the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The first issue raised by the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the AO is not sure about the charge of concealment, whether it is concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Counsel for the assessee referred to Paras of penalty order and para of assessment order whereby the penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under: - "The impugned order of the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed upon the Respondent Assessee. This by holding that the initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by Assessing Officer was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income while the order imposing penalty is for concealment of income. The impugned order holds that the concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should be clear as to which of the two limbs under which penalty is imposable, has been contravened or indicate that both have been contravened while initiating penalty proceedings. It cannot be that the initiation would be only on one limb i.e. for furnishing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rse to Section 52C(2) the Assessing Officer called upon the Assessee to show cause as to why the full value of consideration received on transfer should not be adopted as per the stamp valuation. The Assessee insisted that the question of valuation of the property should be referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer. That was so referred and the report was submitted by the Valuation Officer dated 27.12.2006 determining the market value of the property at Rs. 2,70,03,920/-. The Assessee maintained that the value of Rs. 2 crores is actual sale consideration received by it. However, this was not accepted and the difference between the consideration received and determination of the Valuation Officer was declared as tax liability. 3. To ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia, as follows : "Thus obviously, it is only on account of deeming provisions of s. 50C, the AO has made the addition by adopting the sale consideration of Rs. 5,19,77,000, being the value adopted for the purpose of stamp valuation. The Revenue has also not shown as to how the assessee could be held to have actually received this amount which is in excess the amount of Rs. 2,51,50,000. It has also not been shown as to whether any corresponding addition has been made in the hands of the buyer. In any case, the issue is also now squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Renu Hingorani (supra). In the circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the Co ordinate Bench of this Tribunal ....