TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave received his share amount of Rs. 31,00,000/- being 7.75% of the total consideration as his share in the sale consideration and on this sale consideration capital gain was determined at Rs. 23,78,861/- by the assessee. For the purposes of charge of the stamp duty, the stamp duty valuation authorities valued the fair market value of the property on the date of sale at Rs. 19,40,58,400/- as against shown in the sale deed at Rs. 40,00,000/-. The AO asked the assessee to explain as to why the above fair market value of the property determined by the stamp valuation authorities at Rs. 19,40,58,400/- should not be applied as per provisions of section 50C for the purposes of working of the capital gains. The assessee objected to the above market value determined by the stamp valuation authorities and requested the AO to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer of the Department. Accordingly the matter was referred to the Valuation Officer for determination of the fair market value of property on the date of sale. The Valuation Officer submitted its valuation vide report dated 23/12/2011 and determined the fair market value of the property in question at Rs. 13,02,34,650/-. On the basi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the entire consideration has been invested in Bonds and the exemptions claimed u/s 54F has also been allowed, therefore the question invoking the provisions of section 50C itself does not arise at all as has been held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Jaipur in the case of Prakash Karnawat vs. ITO, Jaipur (16 taxmann.com 357). It is therefore, Ld. AR submitted, that the appeal be allowed and penalty be deleted. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that this is a fit case for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act because in such cases, the penalty need to be imposed mandatorily otherwise each and every assessee will escape payment of tax by adopting a value of sale consideration, knowingly below the stamp duty value determined by the State authorities and shall successfully escape the assessment unless and until the scrutiny of assessment is carried out by the Income Tax Department. Ld. DR further supported the judgment of AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. We have noticed as to how Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the contentions of the assessee and the relevant obser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion authorities. At the request of the appellant the matter was referred to the Valuation Officer for determination of the fair market value of the property in question to meet the end of the justice. Even after referring the valuation of the property in question to the departmental valuation officer, the fair market value of the property was arrived at Rs. 13.02 crores by the Valuation Officer and accordingly the capital gains have been determined at Rs. 68,69,278/- against the capital gains determined and returned by the appellant at Rs. 23,78,861/-. These facts clearly proves the fact of filing the inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant at the time of filing of the return of income for the year under consideration. The appellant had acted dishonestly by filing the wrong particulars of income by not declaring the correct amount of capital gains in respect the property sold him. The correct picture emerged after the Valuation Officer determined the fair market value of the property at Rs. 13,02,34,650/-and the reference was made at the instance of the appellant and there is no escape for the appellant after the receipt of report of the Valuation Officer in the matter. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of Brizo Reality Company Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 2941/Mum/2023) dated 09.01.2025 has held as under: 9. What is concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of such income as contemplated by Section 271(1)(c), has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd. as reported in 322 ITR 158 wherein it has been held as under: - "A glance at the provision of s. 271(l)(c) would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Present is not the case of concealment of the income. That is not the case of the Revenue either. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word "particular" is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word "particulars" used in the s. 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement made o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee's Appeal and deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr. Vimal Gupta submits that the substantial question of law which arises for determination and consideration is whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty cannot be imposed with reference to addition of deemed income under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr. Vimal Gupta relies upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250/38 Taxman 190 (SC). 2. Upon perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in its entirety and noting the peculiar facts pertaining to the Assessee we are of the view that the question as posed before us and the contentions advanced need not be gone into in any further details. The admitted factual position and which the Tribunal noted is prevailing throughout. The Assessee was the owner of the office premises at Nariman Point, Mumbai and he sold the same during the year previous to the Assessment Year 2004-2005 and sale consideration was Rs. 2 crores. The Assessing Officer noted that the market value adopted by the Registrar of Assurances for levy of stamp duty was Rs. 3,72,42,000/-. ....