TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on as disclosed in return of income and as assessed by registrar stamps (i.e. Rs. 1,91,50,085/-) however later the matter was referred under section 50C(2) to departmental valuer who assessed the same at Rs. 1,71,72,400/- thereby resulting into an addition of Rs. 23,23,310/-. Thus the above addition is on account of deeming provision (i.e. section 50C). The variation in the sales value versus value as adopted by departmental valuer as per Section 50C shows that there is no withholding or misrepresentation of facts by the assessee before the AO. The concealment is always with reference to the facts and it cannot be imposed with reference to claim or disallowance on difference of opinion. The addition has been only based upon the estimates and values obtained from the departmental valuer in preference to the value as per sales deed. Thus no facts, evidence or transaction has even been concealed. Thus it is neither technical error nor intentional but is only a "bonafide belief" & does not tantamount to be furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 4. The AO arrived the findings that the assessed at Rs. 26,68,640/- including long term capital gain of Rs. 23,23,310/- on which separate rat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itten submissions dated 29.09.2021 which are as under:- "Thus where the assessee commits any "BONAFIDE MISTAKE" than "DELIBERATE MISTAKE" & the bonafide mistake as committed is also based on expert advice, it cannot be alleged as "CONCEALMENT" or "INACCURATE PARTICULARS" & no penalty can be levied u/sec. 271(1)(c). Refer CIT V/s Skyline Auto Products (P) Ltd. [2004] 271 ITR 335 [2005] 142 Taxman 558 (MP). When a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act is there & where the breach flows from a "BONAFIDE BELIEF" than no penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) can be levied. Refer Hindustan Steel Ltd. V/s State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). Before levying penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) the AO has to prove that assessee has consciously made concealment or inaccurate particulars of his income. In the given circumstances only the technical opinion has changed resulting into change in quantum of tax method of tax but nowhere is could be proved that "CONCEALMENT" taken place & thus no penalty to be levy. Refer K.C. Builders V/s ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562/135 Taxman 461 (SC). In recent decided cases of Hon'ble Supreme Court it has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as reported in 319 ITR (AT) 262 (Chennai) (2009) before ITAT- Chennai Bench dated 13.02.2009 wherein held that where additions made on values of Dy. Registrar office being deemed value and even additions on such deemed value accepted by assessee it cannot be said furnishing of inaccurate particular for levy of penalty of concealment u/sec. 271(1)(c). Further the assessee has not suppressed the accounting value of the sales however only the additions made on technical ground of section 50C wherein for capital gain purpose the value of Dy. Registrar is adopted for taxation. Also refer case of KISHAN CHAND JAINANI, JAIPUR V/s ITO, JAIPUR for A.Y. 2006-07 in Appeal no. 338/JP/2010 as decided by ITAT, Jaipur Bench-A, Jaipur wherein held that ignorance of the provisions of section 50C of the Act is a bona fide belief on the part of assessee in not taking the valuation as per stamp duty officer for computing the amount of capital gains as per section 50C. Similar in appeal no. ITAT JPR Bench ITA 1074/JP/10 in case of late Shri Pratap Chand Jain on the similar ground / issue has been decided favourably to assessee. Considering these facts the Ld. CIT(A) Ajmer in appeal N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC), the penalty cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 10. We are not concerned in the present case with the mens rea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars. In Webster's Dictionary, the word "inaccurate" has been defined as : "not accurate, not exact or correct; not according to truth ; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript." 11. We have already seen the meaning of the word "particulars" in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the * [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). ** [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elow had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assessee. This court, therefore, observed (page 251) : "So far as the question of penalty is concerned the items which were not included in the turnover were found incorporated in the appellant's account books. Where certain items which are not included in the turnover are disclosed in the dealer's own account books and the assessing authorities includes these items in the dealer's turnover disallowing the exemption, penalty cannot be imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside." 14. The situation in the present case is still better as no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the assessee in its return. 15. The Tribunal, as well as, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the High Court have correctly reached this conclusion and, therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merits and is dismissed." Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct to delete the penalty sustained by the ld. CIT(A)." 11. Therefore, we are of the opini....