TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecember 2022 (received on 16 January 2022) the present appeal is being preferred on the following grounds amongst others which, it is prayed, may be considered without prejudice to one another. Ground 1: Passing an Ex-Parte order by not following the natural justice or an opportunity for hearing. 1.1 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte order, without giving an opportunity of hearing working against the principle of natural justice 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in passing the ex-parte judgment. The appellant prays that the appeal should be taken up for hearing. 1.3 That the non-reply was due to the medical exigency and other issues which was not being heard by the Learned CIT (A) Ground 2: Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue on merits and levying the Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961, without hearing the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nishing of inaccurate particulars of income of Rs.21,13,000/-. Assessee submitted his reply on 2nd May, 2018, stating that the addition is made on account of deeming provision under Section 50C of the Act. On such addition penalty cannot be levied. Assessee relied on several judicial precedents of the co-ordinate Benches. 06. The learned Assessing Officer held that assessee has deliberately not shown this income at the time of filing of the return of income. On reopening of the assessment, it has come to the knowledge of the learned Assessing Officer about the above difference and therefore, assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income to that extent. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs.6,52,919/- was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as per order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 4th May, 2018. 07. Assessee approached the learned CIT (A), wherein the assessee was given 11 opportunities but nothing was submitted and therefore, the learned CIT (A) was left to decide the issue ex-parte as per information available. Accordingly, on the merits, he confirmed the penalty and dismissed the appeal. 08. Assessee filed the appeal against the order of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) (c) cannot be levied. 013. In Fortune Hotels & Estate Private Limited 52 taxmann.com 330 [Bom] Honourable jurisdictional High Court on identical facts has held as under:- "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/-. In view thereof by taking recourse to Section 52C(2) the Assessing Officer called upon the Assessee to show cause as to why the full value of consideration received on transfer should not be adopted as per the stamp valuation. The Assessee insisted that the question of valuation of the property should be referred to the Departmental Valuatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was required to declare the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation authority and offer capital gain on the basis of such valuation which he failed to do, and therefore, the assessee was guilty of providing inaccurate particulars of income. To examine this contention, we must refer to subsection [2] of Section 50C which starts with an expression, "without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section [1] ". As per sub-section [2], where the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section [1] of Section 50C has not been disputed in any appeal or revision, or no reference has been made before any other authority or the Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation officer. 13. Under sub-section [2] of Section 50C thus, the assessee has an opportunity to dispute the stamp duty valuation of a property in question before the Assessing Officer upon which the Assessing Officer would refer the question of valuation to the Valuation Officer. Application of sub-section [1] of Section 50C is not automatic and is subject to an opportunity to the assessee to ques....