TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The assessee, an individual, has transferred the capital asset being office space for a consideration of Rs. 4 lakh and declared capital gain of Rs. 1,19,286/- only on the same. However, the AO found that the value on which stamp duty paid was of Rs. 5,79,991/- only. On objection by the assessee, the AO made reference to the valuation officer as per the provision of section 50C(2) of the Act, who valued the property at Rs. 5,51,000/- only. Thus, the AO recomputed the capital gain at Rs. 3,17,517/- after taking consideration at Rs. 5,51,000/- und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1)(c) of the Act by observing as under: 6.1 In this case, the assessee disputed the stamp duty value, therefore, the AO referred the property for valuation to the DVO who determined the value of the property at Rs.5,51,000/- as against the stamp duty value of Rs.5,79,911/-. The fact which needs a special mention here is that, in place of the proposed addition of Rs.5,79,911/- as per the stamp duty value, the AO calculated Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.3,17,517/- adopting the value determined by DVO at Rs.5,51,000/- as against Rs.1,19,286/- calculated by the appellant. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inappropriate particulars of income. The appellant contested this addition by filing appeal be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined by the DVO is adopted for arriving the capital gains. It appears from the facts that though the assessee was aware of the provisions of section 50C, he ignored and declared capital gains. Since, the arguments of the assessee cannot be accepted and the action of the AO is in order as per the provisions of the Act, I am of the considered view that the AO was right in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.46,105/- being minimum penalty. Though, the appellant has quoted the judgement-rendered by various judicial authorities, the same are seldom applicable to the facts of the case. 6.4 In view of the above, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is confirmed. Hence, the ground nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal are dismissed. 7. Being aggrieve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Section 48 of the Act. There is thus a clear distinction between sale consideration actually received and deemed to have been received in terms of sub-section [1] of Section 50C of the Act. Application of subsection [1] of Section 50C therefore cannot automatically give rise to penalty proceedings. 10.1 We also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Fortune Hotels and Estates (P.) Ltd reported in 52 taxmann.com 330 wherein it was held as under: 3. To this extent there is no dispute and what later on followed was the imposition of penalty. The Tribunal held that this cannot be taken as a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income inasmuch as there was a registered sale dee....