The ACIT,Navsari Circle, Navsari V. Super Cool Pvt.Ltd., Navsari

ITA 2174/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85840 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROOP CHAND
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD , BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO.2174/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI APPELLANT VS. SUPER COOL PRIVATE LIMITED, DASHRATH NIWAS, JUNATHANA, NAVSARI - 396445 RESPONDENT PAN: AADCS4414L /BY APPELLANT : SHRI ROOPCHAND, SR. D.R. /BY RESPONDENT : NONE !' /DATE OF HEARING : 27.03.2015 #$% !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.03.2015 ITA NO. 2174/AHD/11 A.Y. 06-07 [ACIT VS. SUPER COOL PRIVATE LIMITED] PAGE 2 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VALS AD, DATED 30.06.2011 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S: [1] ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PE NALTY OF RS.3,08,094/- LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) FOR FURNISHIN G INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 2. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS.583/-. THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/ S.143(3) WAS COMPLETED BY DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.13, 72,791/- BEING DIFFERENCE OF VALUE OF N.A. LAND AS PER SALE DEED ANY VALUATION DETERMINED BY STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHOR ITY. SUBSEQUENTLY PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S. 271(1)(C) WERE INITIATED AND DETERMINED AT RS.3,08,094/-. 2.1 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHO HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF A SSESSEE DELETED PENALTY IN QUESTION. SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE INTER ALIA SUBMITTING THAT CIT(A) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN DELETING PENALTY OF RS.3,08,094/- U/S. 271(1)(C) FO R ALLEGED CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF ITA NO. 2174/AHD/11 A.Y. 06-07 [ACIT VS. SUPER COOL PRIVATE LIMITED] PAGE 3 INCOME. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, ASSESSING OF FICER REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD N.A LAND BEARING RE VENUE S.NO. 180 PAIKY 2886 SQ. METERS, AT KABILPORE DIST NAVSARI FOR RS.4,66,000/- AS PER SALE DEED REGD. NO.1486/06 DAT ED 22.02.2006 AND S.NO. 180 PAIKY 2906 SQ. METERS, AT KABILPORE DIST NAVSARI FOR RS.4,69,000/-AS PER SALE DEED REGD . NO.1799/06 DATED 04.03.2006 TO DIFFERENT PARTIES. O N FURTHER VERIFICATION AND INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM STAMP DU TY VALUATION CELL U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT, IT WAS REVEAL ED THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF SAID LAND WAS ADOPTED AT RS. 11,54, 400/- AND RS. 11,52,400/- RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, EXCESS DOC UMENTATION VALUE WORKED OUT AT RS. 6,88,400/- AND 6,83,400/- R ESPECTIVELY AGGREGATING TO RS.13,71,800/-. ASSESSEE COULD NOT O FFER EXPLANATION, SO, SAME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE U/S.50C OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESS ING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 13,71,800/- AND LEVIED PE NALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL, HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION O F HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPROD UCTS 322 ITR 158 (SCJ, WHEREIN, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HA S HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT A LLOWED BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN TERMS OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). IN THE INSTANT CASE, NEITHER CONCEALMEN T WAS DETECTED NOR ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. THUS, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)(C) IS NOT APPLIED ITA NO. 2174/AHD/11 A.Y. 06-07 [ACIT VS. SUPER COOL PRIVATE LIMITED] PAGE 4 IN THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELE TED THE PENALTY IN QUESTION. SAME IS UPHELD BY US. SAME NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 3. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 31/03/2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA & & & & ' ' ' ' ('% ('% ('% ('% / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. +, / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. // 0 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 0- / CIT (A) 5. '45 , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 589 :; / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / & ,