2017 (2) TMI 1461

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1961 of Rs. 34,87,200/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has suppressed its income by not considering specific provisions of section 50C of the Act for computation of capital gains and the Ld. CIT(A) had earlier confirmed the additions of Rs. 1,74,36,000/- u/s. 50c of the Act?" 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in Law, the CIT(A) is right in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that the penalty has been levied on the addition made by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C of Income Tax Act, 1961." 3) "The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 4) "The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant preferred an appeal against the said addition before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) vide order dated 23/5/2012 partly allowed the appeal by granting part relief to the appellant in respect of addition made u/s 50C of the Act by accepting the value determined by the DVO. Thus, the addition made u/s 50C by CIT(A) was reduced from Rs. 8,21,26,000/- to Rs. 1,74,36,000/- (i.e. Ps. 3,45,86,000/- less Rs. 1,71,50,000/-). iv) After receiving the Order of the CIT(A), the appellant was asked to show cause as to why penalty should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income - (i) capital gain u/s. 50C of Rs. 1,74,36,000/- and (ii) suppression of sale value ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eration is more than that mentioned in the sale agreement. The appellant had furnished all the relevant documents called for by the AO. The AO has not doubted or disproved the validity of the documents. Thus there can be no case that the appellant has concealed any income or furnished any inaccurate particulars. iii) I find that the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs Fortune Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 330 by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, by ITAT Bombay in the case of ACIT vs. Sunland Metal Recycling (ITA No.6454/Mum/2011) and by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff V JCIT, Special Range, Mumbai (291 ITR 519) apply with full force to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of....