TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 be assessed as income under the head "income from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 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 the assessee had purchased the agricultural land measuring 00-21-64 hectares and the lan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 property was having more value for stamp duty valuation, does not tantamount to the facts of having concealed the income or furnishin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 taxation. The appellant has not been able to establish the bonafide of his claim on that score." 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. The Ld. counsel for assessee ....