TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 672
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al sale consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- received by the assessee resulting in the additional tax liability which has been duly paid, however, the same has been made the basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and which is the subject matter of present penalty proceedings. 4. It was submitted that the addition tax liability has arisen on account of applying the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act. It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished all the relevant facts and documents genuineness of which have not been doubted by the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that it is not the case where it has been alleged by the Assessing officer that the assessee has received any consideration over and above the consideration as declared in the sale deed. It was accordingly submitted that merely on account of deeming provisions, it cannot be construed to be a case of furnish of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. It was submitted that section 50C is a deeming provision and it has to be strictly construed and cannot be extended for the purpose of levy of penalty. It was further submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is return of income originally and there was thus a reasonable cause for not filing the return of income. However, as soon as the assessee received the notice u/s 148, in order to avoid any litigation, the return of income was filed taking the value of shop as adopted by the stamp duty authorities and the tax liability arising on account of such differential sale consideration was duly paid by way of self-assessment tax. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. This matter has been considered by the Jaipur Benches in the case of Anita Beniwal, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Alwar (supra) wherein it was held as under:- "6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee had shown sale consideration at Rs. 8 lacs whereas as per section 50C of the Act, the Stamp Authority has assessed the value of property at Rs. 12,35,730/-, there was difference at Rs. 4,75,658/- in the capital gain, which has been accepted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The case law referred by the assessee are squarely applicable. In this case also, there is no evidence with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by the AO by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act. It is evident from the assessment order that the AO has not questioned the actual consideration received by the assessee but the addition is made purely on the basis of deeming provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO has not given any finding that the actual sale consideration is more than the sale consideration admitted and mentioned in the sale agreement. Thus it does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also not the case of the revenue that the assessee has failed to furnish the relevant record as called by the AO to disclose the primary facts. The assessee has furnished all the relevant facts, documents/material including the sale agreement and the AO has not doubted the genuineness and validity of the documents produced before him and the sale consideration received by the assessee. Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee has not furnished correct particulars of income. Merely because the assessee agreed for addition on the basis of valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority would not be a conclusive proof that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d concealment, it read as under: "[Explanation 3. - Where any person fails, without reasonable cause, to furnish within the period specified in sub-section (1) of section 153 a return of his income which he is required to furnish under section 139 in respect of any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1989, and until the expiry of the period aforesaid, no notice has been issued to him under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner(Appeals) is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year such person has taxable income, then, such person shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income in respect of such assessment year, notwithstanding that such person furnishes a return of his income at any time after the expiry of the period aforesaid in pursuance of a notice under section 148." 13. The aforesaid explanation 3 of Section 271(1)(c) had come up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Chhaganlal Suteriya V. ITO (2011) 337 ITR 350 (Guj) wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court observed as....