SHAILENDRA R. SHINDE, MUMBAI V. ITO 22(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 5540/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2315 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UDAY BHASKAR JAKKE
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C . SHARMA, A M AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 5540 /MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 ) SHRI SHAILENDRA R. SHINDE ROOM NO. - 07, RAMASHRAY SOCI ETY, PLOT NO.21, SECTOR - 19, NERUL NAVI M UMBAI - 400 706 . / VS. ITO - 22(3)(4), MUMBAI . ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. BCKPS 53892R ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI UDAY BHASKAR JAKKE / DATE OF HEARING : 21 /07 /2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.7.2016 / O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA , A. M.: THIS IS AN A PPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 26 , MU MB AI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 10.09 . 2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2006 - 07 , IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO. 5540 / M UM/2015 (A.Y. 2006 - 07 ) SHRI SHAILENDRA R. SHINDE VS. ITO 2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUN D THAT AO LEVIED RS.1,42,442/ - IN RESPECT OF SALE PROCEEDS AS PER SECTION 50C. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS COVERED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MRS. N. MEENAKSHI 125 TTJ 0856 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE IM POSE D MERELY ON THE BASIS U/S 50C WHEN IT IS NOT A CASE OF NO R FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. A READING OF SECTION 50C MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE SECTION IS APPLICABLE IN CASES WHERE STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN PAID FOR TRANSFER. MOREOVER, THIS SECTION ALSO POSTUL ATES THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY AND IN SUCH CASES, PROCEDURE FOR REFERENCE TO VALUATION CELL IS PROVIDED. HENCE, THIS SECTION IS NEITHER APPLICABLE NOR IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT ANY REFERENCE TO VALUATION CELL HAS BEEN MADE OR THAT THE AO HAS OBTAINED INDEPENDENT INSTANCES OF COMPARABLE SALES IN THAT PERIOD, OF THAT AREA. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED ADDITION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILT Y OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALMENT. 3. THE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADAN THEATRES LIMITED 684/13 DATED 14 TH MAY,2013 HELD THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE U/S 271(1)(C) WHEN ADDITION IS MADE MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF .. PROVISION OF SECTION 5 0C OF THE A CT. 3 ITA NO. 5540 / M UM/2015 (A.Y. 2006 - 07 ) SHRI SHAILENDRA R. SHINDE VS. ITO 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT FOR THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED BY INV OKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C M ERELY BECAUSE OF ADDITION MADE BY INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 50C . 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 JULY , 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) ( R.C. SHARMA) / JUD I C I AL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 27 . 0 7 .201 6 PS. ASHWINI / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBA I.