TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the immovable property received under a gift by the appellant; b) Not appreciating that the actual full value of consideration received or arising on transfer of immovable property in the hands of the appellant was only Rs. 6,25,00,000/- c) Not appreciating that immovable property received under gift was subject to encumbrance by way of development rights transferred by the donor to Shri Babulal Khandelwal & otrs. 2. The learned Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case and in law the appellant denies her liability to pay any penalty under the said section. The appellant craves leave to add to alter amend and or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee who derives income from house property, share trading business and capital gain on sale of shares had e-filed her return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 30.03.2010, declaring total income of Rs. 1,03,39,200/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such under Sec. 143(1) of the Act. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 75,00,000/- was earlier received by her mother and offered for tax in A.Y. 2003-04, therefore, the A.O adopted the sale consideration at Rs. 7,00,00,000/- and reworked out the LTCG at Rs. 1,28,92,569/-. The A.O while culminating the assessment also initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, the A.O also issued a "Show cause" notice (for short "SCN"), dated 30.12.2010 under Sec. 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act to the assessee, therein calling upon her to explain as to why penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) may not be imposed on her. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide his order dated 30.09.2011 confirmed the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- made by the A.O and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) carried the same in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after deliberating on the contentions advanced by the assessee was however not persuaded to accept the same. It was observed by the Tribunal that the conveyance deed dated 30.12.2007 executed by the assessee in favour of the purchaser was duly witnessed by the mother of the assessee i.e Smt. Vimla D. Sanghvi. Further, it wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal, taking us through the facts of case submitted, that part of the sale consideration of Rs. 75,00,000/- was received by the mother of the assessee i.e. Smt. Vimla D. Sanghvi on 05.02.2003 at the time when she had entered into a JDA with the aforesaid developer viz. Sh. Babulal Khandelwal and Ors. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,25,00,000/- from the said developer at the time of execution of the registered conveyance deed, dated 30.12.2007, had under a bonafide belief worked out the LTCG by adopting the sale consideration at Rs. 6,25,00,000/- i.e the amount which was actually received by her. It was submitted by the Ld. A.R that pursuant to the JDA dated 05.02.2003 entered into by the mother of the assessee Smt. Vimla D. Sanghvi and the aforesaid developer i.e. Sh. Babulal Khandelwal & Ors., certain rights pertaining to the property under consideration got vested with the said developer and in lieu thereof an amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- was paid to her. Alternatively, the Ld. A.R. assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not be imposed on her. We have deliberated on the objection raised by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee had failed to raise a specific ground of appeal as regards the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) on the assessee, thus the same could not be looked into while disposing off the present appeal. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the objection raised by the Ld. D.R and find substantial force in the same. We are persuaded to be in agreement with the contention of the ld. D.R that as the assessee had neither challenged the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) before the lower authorities, nor has raised any specific ground of appeal before us, thus the same cannot be looked into by us while disposing off the present appeal. In this regard, we may herein observe that as per Rule 11 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 an appellant shall not, except with the leave of the Tribunal, urge or be heard in support of any ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal. Thus, in the absence of a ground of appeal having been raised by the assessee before us as regards the validity of the jur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 with the aforesaid purchaser developer i.e. Sh. Babulal Khandelwal & Ors. had earlier received an amount of Rs. 75 lac, which pursuant to vesting of certain rights pertaining to the property under consideration with the said developer, was thus already offered for tax by her. In the backdrop of her aforesaid contention, it is the claim of the assessee that as the amount of Rs. 75 lac was already received and offered for tax in the hands of her mother, thus for the said reason she had on the sale of the property vide registered conveyance deed, dated 30.12.2007, computed the LTCG by taking the sale consideration at Rs. 6,25,00,000/- i.e the amount which was received by her. We find that the assessee had raised two fold contentions to support her claim for computing the LTCG by taking the sale consideration at an amount of Rs. 6,25,00,000/- viz. (i). that the amount of Rs. 75 lac was earlier received as advance by her mother Smt. Vimla D. Sanghvi from the aforesaid developer i.e Sh. Babulal Khandelwal & Ors. at the time of entering into the JDA dated 05.02.2003, and was offered for tax by her mother; and (ii). that she was only in receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,....