TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the third person on 15.01.2007. Consequently, the Power of Attorney holder executed the sale deed of that immovable property, on 05.02.2007 for disclosed consideration Rs. 7,10,000/-. 4. The petitioner filed its return of income tax for the Assessment Year 2007-08 on 21.08.2007 disclosing total income Rs. 98,750/-. It is petitioner's case that he was not aware of the sale deed executed by the Power of Attorney holder. Therefore, the return of income filed by the petitioner did not include the capital gains arising therefrom, to any extent. That knowledge was acquired by the petitioner on 11.04.2008 i.e. in the course of regular assessment proceedings. 5. In view of that disclosure made to the petitioner, it is his further case that he applied before the Settlement Commission on 30.12.2009. At that stage, the petitioner disclosed his income to Rs. 21,00,000/- arising from sale of the above property. 6. Parallel to the proceeding before the Settlement Commission, the Stamp Valuation Authority of the State Government has taken up the matter, of their own. Accordingly, first they valued the sale deed against consideration Rs. 24,50,000/- and still later they revised it to Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it being agricultural land (which it admittedly is not) clearly does not indicate the bonafide of the applicant. It is also seen that the applicant has in a half hearted manner tried to confuse the issue by trying to make out a case that the land in question was his stock in trade but has given up this claim subsequently, after realizing the un- tenability of the same. He has further tried to obfuscate matters by taking recourse to section 45(2) without in any way substantiating his claim of applicability of this section or giving any working on that basis. A cumulative consideration of these facts would clearly show that even in his application before the Settlement Commission the conduct of the applicant is contumacious. He has clearly furnished inaccurate particulars of his income (valuation of the land sold). We feel that this is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). However, we would consider it reasonable to restrict the penalty to the minimum amount of capital gains sought to be evaded with reference to the value of Rs. 80,43,000/- as determined by the Revenue Board vide their order dated 11.4.2008." 8. In such facts, at present the writ petition has been con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... once the petitioner failed to establish his bona fides, clear case of concealment is made out. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, Section 50 C (1) and Section 271(1) (c) of the Act read respectively as below: "50C. Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases.-(1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the "stamp valuation authority") for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer: [Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the first place, the assessee may never have been charged of practising concealment of material particulars of his income qua the proposed revision of Stamp Duty beyond Rs. 24,50,000/-. That liability came to be settled at Rs. 80,43,000/-. Since those facts had not unfolded, they were not known to the petitioner. Consequently, he could not have been saddled with a penalty for non-disclosure of such facts. The petitioner may never have been saddled to perform an impossible duty. A fact that was not know known to the petitioner may never have been disclosed by him. 20. Second, as to imposition of penalty, corresponding to Stamp Duty assessed on value of sale consideration of Rs. 24,50,000/-, suffice to note that assessee had furnished explanation with respect to the same. According to the assessee, he was not aware of the sale deed executed by his Power of Attorney holder Gaurav Agrawal, on 05.02.2007. He further pleaded, according to the recital contained in the sale deed itself, the property was sold for Rs. 7,10,000/- against cash payment received by said Gaurav Agrawal. Whether that explanation was true or not has not been investigated by the Settlement Commission. The Settlemen....