2022 (8) TMI 1624

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nishing inaccurate particulars of income,under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) and pertaining to Asst.Year 2016-17. 2. Effective ground of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under: "On the facts read with the explanation of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as well as considering the penalty reply, there was not justification for levy of penalty of Rs. 1,18,965/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act either factually or legally." 3. As transpires from orders of the authorities below, penalty was levied on account of addition made amounting to Rs. 3,85,000/- to the income of the assessee on account of a property purchased by the assessee for consideration le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat 20% of above was paid Rs. 48,000/- but as per "Jantri" of state government I have paid stamp duty for our shares of value of Rs. 67,27,000/-. This is due to the reason that on our land high tension wire is going only land as well as the land is at the end of the village and hence the value of land is less than "Jantri value". I have already explained to the sub-registrar (stamp authority) but he was bound by stamp duty Act and charged higher stamp duty as per jjantri value while our purchase value is less than "Jantri" value. I don't want to go in litigation as value of the land may increase value and hence I compromise and paid the duty as per "Jantri value". Now for the peace of mind I agree to pay tax ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty as there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the submission dated 25/04/2019 same facts have been narrated by the assessee and has also relied upon various decisions for non levy of penalty as the conduct and explanation of the assessee is bona fide. Further, he contended that in any case, the addition had been made on account of deeming provision and there was no finding by the Revenue that the assessee had actually paid any amount over and above the purchase price of the asset. It was contended therefore that the assessee could not be charged with having concealed/furnished any inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, he rel....