AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 793
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing ground: "The learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals has erred while upholding action of the Assessing Officer considering concealment of income Rs. 4,99,97,801/- (return income Rs. 62,60,801 + return loss Rs. 4,37,37,000) against actual return of income Rs. 8,94,480 with c/f. long term capital loss Rs. 4,37,37,000 and assessed income Rs. 8,94,480 + long term capital gain Rs. 59,06,980. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals has wrongly upheld levy of penalty Rs. 1,13,29,5007- on the basis of deemed concealed income Rs. 4,99,97,8017- against tax evaded Rs. 14,12,189 (tax payable as per return of income Rs. 1,87,901 and tax assessed Rs. 16,00,090) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals has wrongly concluded that appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in spite of fact that your appellant was relied on valuation report from registered valuer." 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is deriving interest on various bonds and deposits. During the year under consideration, the assessee along with other two co-owners i.e. Shri Chandrakant Malukchand Mehta and Shri Mulraj Malukchand Mehta sold im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come filed by the assessee, the assessee tried to conceal income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of cost of acquisition of property by furnishing false and misleading valuation report dated 19th March 2009 of M/s. J.v.Udani, approved Valuer (Fellowship No.F-1032) wherein 1/3rd share of property is valued at Rs. 114 lacs whereas the same M/s. J.V.Udani, has valued the 1/3rd share of same property in the case of other co-owner at Rs. 68 lacs vide his report dated 19th March, 2009, a copy of which is also available on record and subsequently only in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the I.T.Act, the assessee filed another return of revised income. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income." The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act observing as under: 14. Coming to the merit of imposition of penalty, it is to be said that section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is attracted where in the case of any proceedings under the Act, the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income, or has furnished inaccur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove discussion, I hold that penalty is exigble in the case of the appellant. 6.2 In so far as the reliance placed by the appellant on various court decisions are concerned, the same are not applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant discussed above. On the contrary, the decisions relied upon by the AO to levy penalty in the case of the appellant are found to be more applicable. Besides, I place reliance on the hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No.9772 of 2013, in the case of Mak Data Pvt Ltd, wherein the apex court has re-confirmed the scope of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, laid down by it in UOI v/s Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2008) 13 SSC 3693 and CIT v/s Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 589, to uphold the penalty order, Consequently, I hold and confirm that levy of penalty Rs. 1,13,29,500/- in the case of the appellant is fully justified, and dismiss the grounds of appeal." Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee has disclosed Long term capital loss of Rs. 4,37,37,000/- on sale of property and for this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he has not enclosed the sheet showing sale instance but nothing turns thereupon as he had not relied upon any sale instances. 93. There can be a genuine difference of opinion between two experts. The District Valuer, as noticed hereinbefore, having regard to the sale instances of 1979 wherein the value of the land was fixed at Rs. 500 per sq. ft., took notice of the fact that the valuation in terms of another sale instance of October 19, 1982, wherein the land was valued at about Rs. 1,823 per sq. ft. A valuation was to be arrived at as on April 1, 1981. He picked up a figure of Rs. 897 per sq. ft. No reason had been assigned in support thereof. No other or further sale instances had been given. We do not know as to whether any other sale instances were available. He merely stated that such valuation had been arrived at after taking into account the time size- shape, time gap, location-situation and also the factors like physical, social, legal and economical. Some other officer could have picked up holes in the said report. On the other hand, the opinion of the registered valuer, as would appear from the report, was that he had taken into consideration the value of the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vide its impugned order ignoring the settled law as laid down by this court that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was conclusive and the prosecution cannot be sustained since the penalty after having been cancelled by the complainant following the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal's order no offence survives under the Income- tax Act and thus the quashing of the prosecution is automatic? (d) Whether the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is binding upon the criminal court in view of the fact that the Chief Commissioner and the Assessing Officer who initiated the prosecution under section 276C(1) had no right to overrule the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. More so when the Income-tax Officer giving the effect to the order cancelled the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) ? (e) Whether the High Court's order is liable to be set aside in view of the errors apparent on record? 99. In K. C. Builders (supra), this court noticed the dictionary meaning of the explanation and held (page 565) : "4. The respondent/assessing authority treated the difference between the income as per original return and revised income as co....