Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not apply in case of variation in sales consideration & SDV as per Sec 50C deeming provision: ITAT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not apply in case of variation in sales consideration & SDV as per Sec 50C deeming provision: ITAT

CA Pratibha Goyal | Apr 27, 2022 |

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not apply in case of variation in sales consideration & SDV as per Sec 50C deeming provision: ITAT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not applicable in case of variation in sales consideration & SDV as per Sec 50C deeming provision: ITAT

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return voluntarily on 08.10.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- and paid tax on the long term capital gain calculated as per actual sale consideration. Later on 15.10.2014 the assessee was issued notice under section 148 for difference in stamp value in sale consideration as disclosed in return of income and as assessed by registrar stamps (i.e. Rs. 1,91,50,085/-) however later the matter was referred under section 50C(2) to departmental valuer who assessed the same at Rs. 1,71,72,400/- thereby resulting into an addition of Rs. 23,23,310/-. Thus the above addition is on account of deeming provision (i.e. section 50C). The variation in the sales value versus value as adopted by departmental valuer as per Section 50C shows that there is no withholding or misrepresentation of facts by the assessee before the AO. The concealment is always with reference to the facts and it cannot be imposed with reference to claim or disallowance on difference of opinion. The addition has been only based upon the estimates and values obtained from the departmental valuer in preference to the value as per sales deed. Thus no facts, evidence or transaction has even been concealed. Thus it is neither technical error nor intentional but is only a “bonafide belief” & does not tantamount to be furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The AO arrived the findings that the assessed at Rs. 26,68,640/- including long term capital gain of Rs. 23,23,310/- on which separate rate of tax would be charges as per provisions of Act. Charged interest u/s 234A, 234B and 324C. Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) has been issued for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the Order of AO. Aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

ITAT Order:

9. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record. We are of the opinion that the AO has considered the full value consideration U/s 50C as against the actual sale consideration declared by the assessee . The increased of value by the AO in the full value consideration does not amount either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Further we observed additions made on values of Dy. Registrar office being deemed value and even additions on such deemed value accepted by assessee it cannot be said furnishing of inaccurate particular for levy of penalty of concealment u/sec. 271(1)(c).

StudyCafe Membership

Join StudyCafe Membership. For More details about Membership Click Join Membership Button
Join Membership

In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]

Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"




Author Bio
My Recent Articles
RCM Self Invoice required to be generated within 30 Days [CBIC notifies new Rule] GST Annual Return and Reconcilliation Statements Offline Utility for FY 23-24 Released ITC Reconciliation from GSTR-2B instead of GSTR-2A in Form GSTR-9 from FY 2023-24 onwards [GST Notification] GST Annual Return: Optional Table for GSTR-9 FY 2023-24 Interest on failure to Deduct/Pay TDS/TCSView All Posts