Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2020 (1) TMI 820

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e purpose of stamp duty under section 50 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") was shown at Rs. 1,93,16,000/-. When asked to justify the slump sale and explain as to why the sale consideration for the sale of factory shall not be taken at Rs. 1,93,16,000/-as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act, the assessee replied that after going through all the legal positions and facts, the assessee revised the computation of income by ignoring the claim of slump sale and showing long term capital gains on the sale of factory land after taking the sale consideration as per section 50C of the Act and short-term capital gain on sale of factory building and machinery under section 50C and also paid the balance amount of tax/interest. 3. On this, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee had revised the computation of income after detecting the concealment by the Revenue and therefore the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income and furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. Learned Assessing Officer accordingly initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted that they were under the bon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) after detection by the Department and the assessee failedto furnish true particulars, upheld the levy of penalty and dismissed the appeal. 6. Assessee is, therefore, before us in this appeal contending in the grounds of appeal thatthe authorities are not clear while recording penalty being imposed on concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the levy of penalty is illegal; that the additions/disallowances only because of technical reason and difference of opinion, which cannot be treated as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and, as a matter of fact, there is neither concealment of particulars of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. It is further stated in the grounds of appeal that the addition made on account of difference between the slump sale claimed and that of the learned Assessing Officer as per section 50C of the Act cannot be treated as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars inasmuch as the assessee claimed slump sale under section 50B of the Act on the basis of technical opinion of co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oes not reveal that the learned Assessing Officer undertake any new material that was suppressed by the assessee, pursuant to which the detection of concealment of income was found. It's not the case of the Revenue that the assessee did not reveal the auditor's report or their claim of slump sale under section 50B of the Act. Further it could be seen that except the valuation covered by the stamp duty, there is nothing on record to show that the value of the slump sale was not Rs. 1.2 crores. Even according to the penalty order, immediately on the learned Assessing Officer issuing show cause notice, the assessee gave up the claim of slump sale and by way of revised computation of income accepted the opinion of the learned Assessing Officer and paid the taxes thereon with interest. 11. Now the question is whether this amounts to either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof.In this context we would like to refer to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court rendered inthe case of CIT vs. DCM Limited(2013) 359 ITR 0101 (Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that law does not bar or prohibit an assessee for making a claim, which he be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nother offence or finding him guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out satisfaction of the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. After, he places his version and tries to substantiate his claim, if at all, penalty is to be imposed, it should be imposed only on the grounds on which he is called upon to answer. It is not open to the authority, at the time of imposing penalty to impose penalty on the grounds other than what assessee was called upon to meet. Otherwise though the initiation of penalty proceedings may be valid and legal, the final order imposing penalty would offend principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. Thus once the proceedings are initiated on one ground, the penalty should also be imposed on the same ground. Where the basis of the initiation of penalty proceedings is not identical with the ground on which the penalty was imposed, the imposi....