2025 (9) TMI 1249

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21 on 13.02.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 13,89,890/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the purchase value of property which was less than the value as per the stamp authority. It transpired that the assessee, as a co-owner, had purchased two properties at a consideration which was lower than the stamp duty value of the properties. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act and the difference of Rs. 30,50,000/- between the stamp duty value and the purchase price was considered as income of the assessee. The assessment was completed under Sect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the law and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming penalty of Rs 4,75,800/- uls.270A of the I.T. Act 1961 levied by Ld. AO as appellant case falls under Section 270A(6)(b) of the Act, i.e, exception to underreported income. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend and or alter the ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal." 5. Shri Biren Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that the sole basis of levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act was the deeming provision under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, which cannot be considered as any under-statement of income by the assessee. In this regard, he has relied upon various decisions as quoted i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 56(2)(x) of the Act. The contention of the assessee is that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act can be imposed for such deeming addition. It is found that the case laws relied upon by the assessee were in the context of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which are not found relevant to decide the issue before us. Only the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Bombay Tribunal in the case of Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT/NFAC, 152 taxmann.com 382 (Mumbai- Trib.) is found to be in the context of penalty under Section 270A of the Act for under-reporting the income. In that case also, the addition was made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, which was held as not falling in the category of underreporting or misreportin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er-reported income represented by any addition made in conformity with the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. 7.2 It is found that the assessee had disclosed all the material facts and explanation as to why the purchase price of the property was less than the stamp duty value was also given by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer had held that the explanation of the assessee was not bona-fide as no supporting eviden....