TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 989
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- on account of following additions:- i) Deemed dividend: Rs. 5,27,429/- ii) Unexplained investment u/s 69B: Rs. 3,90,696/- 2. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Tribunal vide order dated 6.9.2013 in ITA No. 4280/Del/2010 in the quantum proceedings has deleted the addition on account of deemed dividend and therefore, the penalty on this addition should be deleted. 3. On the issue of addition of Rs. 3,98,696/- made u/s 69B, Ld. Counsel submitted that the same has been made on account of difference of value as shown in the registered sale deed and the estimate made by the Valuation Officer of the department for determining the value of the plot purchased by the assessee. The assessee has p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fference of circle rate and estimate by the DVO, there cannot be the ground for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). He further submitted that AO while initiating the penalty proceedings had not specified the charge as to under which limb of the provision of section 271(1)(c) he is initiating the penalty. This he pointed out is evident from the assessment order, wherein he has tried to levy the penalty for both the charges, i.e., 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income'. Without specifying the charge such penalty cannot be levied as held by various judicial pronouncement for which he filed separate synopsis of such judgements. 5. On the other hand CIT DR, submitted that the assessee could not expla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. Since there was a difference in the value of both the plots, the matter was referred to the Valuation Officer by the AO who had estimated the value at Rs. 42,40,960/-. The assessee's contention before the authorities below was that the agreement to sell for both the properties was entered at different times and the locational advantage for both the plots were entirely different and this was demonstrated vide letter dated 5.1.2008 before the AO. The valuation report was rebutted by the assessee in the following manner:- "Originally the amount of Rs. 38,50,000/- paid to the seller by M/s. Kohinoor Agencies amounting Rs. 26,00,000/- on 16/09/2004 and by Smt. Suman Jain Rs. 12,50,000/- on 24/11/2004. The deal was not matured as ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught either by way of inquiry by the AO or some tangible information has into his knowledge that the purchase consideration of Rs. 38,50,000/- for the plot No. D-101 is less or assessee has paid extra than what has been mentioned in the registered sale document, then no penalty for either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars can be levied. Though section 69B is a deeming fiction but in the matter of penalty proceedings, such deeming fiction cannot be extended so as to hold assessee guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars when the addition on account of deeming fiction is based on some kind of estimate given by a Govt. Valuer. If nothing incriminating is found against the assessee, the....