TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2014 electronically declaring an income of Rs. 9,39,440/-, which was processed at the returned income. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. 4. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had purchased a piece of land measuring 00-21-64 hectare from Mrs. Kamla, Ms. Ramita(Joint owners) all residents of village Jaish, Tehsil Theog, Distt. Shimla for a consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- as against Market Value/Stamp duty value of the said land at Rs. 7,00,000/-. The A.O. was of the view that as per provisions of clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of section 56 of the Act, the difference between stamp duty value and consideration was liable to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same was out of the municipal area as per the facts admitted and copy of the sale deed in respect of the same is being placed on record for your kind perusal and ready reference. 2. Though, the addition had been made and the same had not been challenged, the issue to be adjudicated upon by this Hon'ble forum are two folds:- a). Whether the additions under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged difference could have been made? b). Though the addition in respect of the same has been made and same has not been challenged whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as imposed is legally sustainable? 3. As far as the issue No. 1 is concerned, it is most respectfully submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....treated to have concealed income or filed inaccurate particulars in respect of the same. 6. At the cost of repetition, it is once again submitted that addition in fact in itself is wrong and what had been purchased by the assessee, does not fall within the meaning capita/ assets as elucidated under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. Filing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment are positive facts with an intent to defraud the revenue. In the instant case part from the fact that stamp duty valuation was more, no positive facts of the assessee having purchased the property for consideration of more than the agreed consideration has been placed on record by the Ld. A.O. 8. Just because the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....land is not a capital asset as claimed by the appellant. The further issue to be considered is that the appellant had purchased a piece of land wherein the value of investment made and the valuation as per stamp duty were at variance and the difference was required to be offered as deemed income under the head "Income from other sources" u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act which the appellant failed to declare. Hence the appellant failed to declare the "deemed" income which required to be offered as income in the return as per law. The appellant did not qualify his return and also failed to make the said disclosure. In this context, it has to be inferred that the appellant tried his luck in not offering the aforementioned income for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e/stamp duty value at Rs. 7 lacs and difference of Rs. 4 lacs was added to the income of the assessee under the provisions of clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of section 56 of the Act. However, the said land was not an asset as per the definition provided u/s 2(14) of the Act, which defines the capital asset. The provisions contained in sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Act clearly state that the agricultural land beyond the municipal area is not to be included in the definition of capital asset. In the present case, the A.O. added the notional value i.e. the difference in actual consideration and stamp duty value, in the hands of the assessee under the head 'income from other sources'. In the instant case, the assessee disclosed all the ....