Kandaswamy Chetty Lakshmanan, CHENNAI V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 11(5), CHENNAI

ITA 2545/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5243 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS RU GEORGE
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 54F; 148; 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI ... , , $ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. I.T.A. NOS. 2545 & 2546/CHNY/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2011-12 SHRI K ANDASWAMY CHETTY LAKSHMANAN, #44, ACHARAPPAN STREET, KOTHWAL BAZAAR, CHENNAI 600 001. [PAN: AAAPL1645E] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 11(5), 2 ND FLOOR, BSNL BUILDING, #16, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI 600 006. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. PHILIP GEORGE, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : MRS. RUBY GEORGE, CIT - /DATE OF HEARING : 30.01.2018 - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.04.2018 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THESE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER S OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 68/CIT(A)-13/20 11-12 DATED 11.07.2017 AGAINST RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W. 147 FOR AY 2011-12 AND ITA NO. 188/CIT(A)-13/2011-12 DATED 05. 09.2017 AGAINST THE ORDER OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR AY 2011- 12, RESPECTIVELY. :-2-: ITA NO. 2545 & 2546/CHNY/2017 ITA NO. 2545/CHNY/2017 2. SHRI KANDASWAMY CHETTY LAKSHMANAN, THE ASSESSEE, ALONG WITH TWO OTHERS SOLD THREE UNITS OF PROPERTY ON 21.10.2010 F OR RS. 51 LAKHS AND HIS SHARE WAS RS. 17 LAKHS. THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING O UT OF THESE TRANSACTIONS WAS ASSESSED TO TAX U/S. 143(3) AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 23.12.2013. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RE-FIXED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR U/S. 47A OF THE REGISTRATION ACT BY WHICH THE SALE CONSIDERA TION WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 2,17,08,500/-. APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C, THE ASSESSEES SHARE OF CAPITAL GAINS WORKED OUT AT RS. 65,14,966/-, FOR TH IS REASON THE AO RE-OPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION C OMPLETED THE RE- ASSESSMENT ADOPTING THE ASSESSEES SHARE AT RS. 72, 36,166/-, FROM WHICH HE REDUCED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS. 7,21,200/- A ND ARRIVED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 65,14,966/-. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON ALL THESE ISSUES. AGGRIEVE D, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2545/2017 CHALLENGING THE JURISDI CTION FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147, THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR THE PROP ERTY AT 23 TO 25, 4 TH LANE, BEACH ROAD, MUTHIALPET, GEORGE TOW, CHENNAI, THE VA LUE AS ON 01.04.1981 OF THE PROPERTY, THE COMPUTATION OF THE LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAINS ETC. :-3-: ITA NO. 2545 & 2546/CHNY/2017 4. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSE SSMENT U/S. 143(3), ALL FACTS RELEVANT TO THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS HAS BEEN FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSED AND HENCE THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEF THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND HENCE THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 IS INVALID. WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 50C VALUATION AND COMPUTATION, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2277/MDS/20 15 DATED 16.09.2016 IN THE CO-OWNERS CASE I.E., IN THE CASE OF SHRI K. RAM ASWAMY SHETTY, ON SIMILAR GROUNDS SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A ) AND REMITTED THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. PER CONTRA, THE DR SUP PORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GON E THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIALS. WHILE WORKING OUT THE LONG TER M CAPITAL GAINS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3), THE AO HAD NO I NFORMATION ABOUT THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY MADE U/S. 47A OF THE REGISTRA TION ACT. ON RECEIPT OF INFORMATION OF STAMP VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY U/S. 47A AND FINDING THAT THE VALUE ARRIVED BY THEM, I.E., THE VALUE U/S. 50C WAS DIFFERENT, THEN THE VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED U/ S. 147 AND HENCE THE PLEA MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE VALIDITY OF RE-OPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS HELD AS UNTENABLE. ON THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES, IT IS HELD THAT THE :-4-: ITA NO. 2545 & 2546/CHNY/2017 RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS VALIDLY DONE. THUS, TH E ASSESSEES GROUNDS RELATING TO RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 I S DISMISSED. WITH REGARD TO THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI K. RAMASWAMY, SUPRA, IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF PULSES. HE FILED HIS RETURN O F INCOME ON 30.09.2011 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,65,060/-. THE RETURN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [A CT IN SHORT] ON 27.12.2011. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AN D NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 03.08.2012. IN RESPONSE TH ERETO, THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS FOR SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 51,00,000/-. ON PERUSAL OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED FURNISHED BY THE SUB-REGISTERED OFFICE, CHENN AL, THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RE-FIXED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR UNDER SECTION 47(A) OF THE REGISTRATION ACT. HENCE, SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS ATTRACTED IN THE PROPERTIES SOLD DURING THE F.Y. 2010-11 AND ACCORDI NGLY THE VALUE ADOPTED AS PER 47(A) OF THE REGISTRATION ACT AND THE DETAILS OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ARE AS UNDER:- 1. UNIT-I: OLD MUNICIPAL DOOR NO.10, PART OF MUNICI PAL DOOR NO.9/IL, NEW NO.23, FOURTH LANE BEACH ROAD, MUTHIALPET, GEORGE T OWN CHENNAI, MEASURING 1100 SQ. FEET. UNIT-II: OLD MUNICIPAL DOOR. NO.1 /11 AND NOW NEW M UNICIPAL DOOR NO. 9/11, NEW NO.24, FOURTH LANE BEACH ROAD, MUTHIALPET , GEORGE TOWN, CHENNAI, MEASURING 684 SQ. FEET UNIT III: OLD MUNICIPAL DOOR NO.2/11, NEW MUNICIPAL DOOR NO. 9/11, NEW NO.25, FOURTH LANE BEACH ROAD, MEASURING 1142 SQ. FE ET. THUS, THE ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED U NIT WAS 1/3D OF 2926 SQ.FT. COMES TO .72,36,166/- 2. IN THE SURVEY NO.RS.3748/1 AT DORR NO.35,FOURTH L ANE, MUTHIALPET GEORGE TOWN, CHENNAI -600 001 .THE TOTAL COMES TO 7 84 SQ. FT. 3. IN THE SURVEY NO. RS. 3866 AT NEW DOOR NO. 11, FO URTH LANE, MUTHIALPET GEORGE TOWN, CHENNAI - 600 001 .THE TOTAL COMES TO 791 SQ. FT. :-5-: ITA NO. 2545 & 2546/CHNY/2017 FOR THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTIES VIDE SL.NO.2 & 3 THE A SSESSEE IS HAVING 100% SHARE IN THE SALE CONSIDERATION MADE DURING THE F. Y. 20010-11. 3. IN THE ABOVE UNIT-I, UNIT-IL, AND UNIT-ILL, THE FULL VALUE OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS TAKEN AT . 2,1 7,08,500/- (51,00,000+1,65,78,50 0+30000) IN 3 UNITS SINCE THE ABOVE ASSESSEE IS HAVING 113RD SHARE OF .2,17,08500/- VIDE SERIAL NO.1 AS RS. 72,36,166/- (SERIAL NO.2 AS .23,21,080/- AND SERIAL NO.3 AS RS. 18,15,103/-. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE TOTAL LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAINS WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 1,06,51,033/- AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,10,16,091/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ID. CIT(A) BY CHALLENGING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND VALUA TION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. BY OF SALE DEED AND COPY OF LETTER FROM THE SUB-REGISTRAR, CHENNAI, T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY TH E STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IN PURSUANT TO THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 47A OF IN DIAN STAMP ACT, 1899 WAS SIMPLY IGNORED AND PRAYED THAT THE FINAL VALUE ADOPT ED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 47A OF INDIAN STAMP ACT SHOU LD BE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS WITH REGARD TO DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON.OI.04.1981, THOUGH THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR,. CHENNAI HAS FURNISHE D THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS. ON 01.04.1981 AT RS. 2,50,000/- AS WELL AS RS. 6,00,000/-, THE CONTENTION, OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHEN THE P ROPERTY ON THE SAME ROAD WAS SOLD AT RS. 6,00,000/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01 04 1981 AT 6,00,000/- 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ID DR HAS SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON.. RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE TALE CONSIDERA TION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 51,00,000/-. THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE JOINT SUB-REGISTRAR WAS RS. 1,65,78,5000/-. ON APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE VA LUATION UNDER SECTION 47A OF THE INDIAN STAMP ACT, 1899, THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFIC ER HAS FIXED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 1,08,76,189/- AND AS PER THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS, THE JOINT SUB- REGISTRAR HAS COLLECTED THE DEFICIT REGISTRATION FEE OF .57,560I-. THEREFORE, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE RS. 1,08,76,000/- [ROUNDED OFF]. BY FILING COPY OF THE SALE DEED, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONE HAS NOT ENJOYED THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO PERTY AND THE ASSESSEE WAS :-6-: ITA NO. 2545 & 2546/CHNY/2017 HOLDING ONLY 1I3 SHARE OF THE SAID PROPERTY. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ACCORDI NGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY AND WORK OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS AFRESH. 8. WITH REGARD TO DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 FOR THE PROPERTIES AT SI. NO. I TO 3 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , IT IS A FACT THAT THE JOINT SUB- REGISTRAR, CHENNAI NORTH VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 03.0 2.2014 FURNISHED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS. 21,50,000/- AS WELL AS RS. 6,00,000/-. AS CONTENDED BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE ACTUAL COST OF THE P ROPERTY AND IF THERE IS ANY INSTANCE OF PROPERTY SOLD AT RS. 6,00,000/-, THE SAM E SHOULD BE ADOPTED FOR COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON. 01.04.1981 FOR THE ABOVE SAID PR OPERTIES. ACCORDINGLY, ON BOTH COUNTS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(A) AND REMIT THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE AND DECIDE THE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, THIS TRIBUNAL ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE SA LE DEED HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ABOVE IN ONE OF CO-OWNERS CASE FOLLOWING IT, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT ALL THE ISSUES T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE AND DECIDE THEM AFRESH, AFTER AL LOWING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE DECISION. THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2545/2017 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA 2546/CHNY/2017: 6. SHRI. K. LAKSHMANAN, THE ASSESSEE, ADMITTED INCO ME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 FROM BUSINESS AS A WHOLESALE MERCHANT, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INTEREST INCOME. HE SOLD A PROPERTY, BUT HAS NOT ADMITTED THE :-7-: ITA NO. 2545 & 2546/CHNY/2017 TRANSACTION OF SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE RETURN AS IN COME. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT HE AND HIS TWO BROTHERS SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR RS. 51 LAKHS AND HIS SHARE WAS RS. 17 LAKHS. WHEN THE AO PROPOSED TO ASSESS THE CAPITAL GAINS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54 ON THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT LINGHI CHETTY STREET, CHENNAI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE PROP ERTY SOLD WAS A GODOWN, A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54. THEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUC TION U/S. 54F. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE OWNED MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROP ERTY AND HAS BEEN ADMITTING INCOME FROM THEM, THE AO DID NOT GRANT DE DUCTION U/S. 54F ALSO. HE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT, COMPUTING THE LONG TER M CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 12,37,690/- AND ADDED TO THE ADMITTED INCOME AND IN ITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME FROM SALE OF PROPERTY. AFTER THE ITAT CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C). AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY ETC LEVIED A MINIMUM PENALTY AT 100% OF TAX ON THE INCOME SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILE D THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BON AFIDE BELIEF THAT EXEMPTION U/S.S 54/54F IS AVAILABLE TOWARDS SALE OF PROPERTY, BUT :-8-: ITA NO. 2545 & 2546/CHNY/2017 INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO MENTION THE CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF PROPERTY AND THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN THE RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COMPLETE, PROPER AND VALID EXPLANATION BEFORE THE OFFICER FOR NOT DISCLOSING THE CAPITAL GAINS. THERE IS NO WILFUL DEFAULT OR NEGLIGENCE BY THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DISCLOSING THE INCOME AND HENCE THE FINDINGS RE CORDED BY THE CIT(A) IS WRONG. THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT AND THE PENAL TY CANNOT BE LEVIED MERELY BECAUSE THE ADDITION WAS UPHELD BY THE APPELLANT AU THORITIES. RELYING ON THE RATIO OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S GEM GRANITES, TCA NO 504 OF 2009 DATED 12.11.2013 86 CCH 160 CHEN HC , T HE AR SOUGHT TO RELIEF. 8. PER CONTRA, THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT DISCLOSED THE SALE OF PROPERTY AT ALL. INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE CAPITAL GAINS WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. IF THE SCRUTINY WAS NOT TAKEN, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WOULD HAVE REMAINED UNTAXED ON ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING CONCEALED PARTICULARS ARE THEREBY CONCEALED THE INCOME. SINCE, THE CONCEALMENT AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR S AND APPARENT AND OBVIOUS, THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE, AS THE Y HAVE NO DIRECT IMPLICATION ON ASSESSEES CASE. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO MA KE A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OR DEDUCTION, HE SUPPORT THEM WITH EVIDENCE. THE A SSESSEE DEPENDING ON THE :-9-: ITA NO. 2545 & 2546/CHNY/2017 SITUATION KEPT ON CHANGING HIS STAND ON THE ELIGIBI LITY OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OR 54F TO SUIT HIS CONVENIENCE BUT WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACT ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN LEVYING THE PENALTY, WHICH MAY BE SUSTAINED. 9. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIALS. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMI TTED INCOME FROM BUSINESS, HOUSE PROPERTY AND INTEREST INCOME, BUT, HE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AT ALL. I N FACT, BASED UPON THE AIR REPORT, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY CASS TO EXAMINE THE TAXABILITY OF SALE OF PROPERTY. THUS, IF THERE WAS NO ANNUAL INF ORMATION REPORT GATHERED BY THE REVENUE AND THAT WAS NOT LINKED TO THE CASS, THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE SOLD THE PROPERTY, REALISED THE GAINS WOULD NOT HAV E COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE REVENUE AT ALL. THE REVENUE HAVING GATHERED ALL TH ESE INFORMATION AND ON DUE PROCESSING DETECTED THIS INCOME. WHEN THE AO P ROPOSED TO ASSESS THIS INCOME, FIRST THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 5 4, WHEN SUCH CLAIM WAS FOUND UNTENABLE, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ALTERNATIVE CL AIM U/S. 54F, WHICH WAS ALSO FOUND UNTENABLE. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SALE OF PROPERTY AND ITS CONSEQUENTIAL GAINS IN HIS RETURN AT ALL. ON SUCH FACTS, THE CAS E CLEARLY FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 271(1)(C) AND HENCE, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S. 271(1)(C) :-10-: ITA NO. 2545 & 2546/CHNY/2017 AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY IN TERFERENCE. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 254 5/2017 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2546/2017 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 25 TH APRIL, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) !' /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED: 25 TH APRIL, 2018 JPV -34565 /COPY TO: 1. 8 / APPELLANT 2. 3:8 /RESPONDENT 3. ; ) ( /CIT(A) 4. ; /CIT 5. 53 /DR 6. > /GF