Ramesh Kumar Bansal, CHENNAI V. AIT, CHENNAI

ITA 77/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4180 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: THIRUPURASUNDARI
• Assessee Lawyers: R PADMANABHAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.77/MDS/2017 & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI RAMESH KUMAR BANSAL, NO.16/6, EKAMBARARESHWAR AGRAHARAM, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI - 600 003. PAN : AFUPR 6532 H V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI - 600 006. ()*/ APPELLANT) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT) )* - . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. PADMANABHAN, CA +,)* - . / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. THIRUPURASUNDARI, JCIT / - 0' / DATE OF HEARING : 25.05.2017 12' - 0' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.06.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHENNAI , DATED 01.11.2016, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2 I.T.A. NO.77/MDS/17 2. SHRI R. PADMANABHAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF ANNUAL INF ORMATION REPORT, IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPERTY AT JALORE, RAJASTHAN. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESE NTATIVE, THE PROPERTY ITSELF WAS SOLD FOR ` 6,00,000/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN AT ` 8,09,935/- ON THE BASIS OF THE GUIDELINE VALUE UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT FOR TH E PURPOSE OF LEVYING PENALTY, THE NOTIONAL VALUE ADOPTED UNDER S ECTION 50C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE A BASIS. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE INADVERTENTLY OMITTED T O OFFER THE CAPITAL GAIN FOR TAXATION, BUT THE MOMENT IT WAS BR OUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE S AME AND PAID THE TAXES, THEREFORE, LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS NOT CALLED FOR. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT A SIMILARLY INTEREST INCOME WAS ALSO OFFERED FOR TAXATION. HEN CE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PEN ALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. THIRUPURASUNDARI, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT 3 I.T.A. NO.77/MDS/17 DISCLOSED THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND AT JALOR E, RAJASTHAN. ON THE BASIS OF AIR RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SAME WAS BROUGHT FOR TAXATION AFTER GIVING A COPY TO THE ASS ESSEE. EVEN THOUGH THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY IS ` 6,00,000/-, THE VALUE WAS TAKEN AT ` 11,41,200/- ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION ADOPTED B Y THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES UNDER SECTION 50C OF T HE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED THE MINIMUM PENALT Y OF ` 1,84,576/- WHICH WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OFFERED THE INTEREST INCOME OF ` 57,386/- AND CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPERTY AT JALORE, RAJASTHAN. WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH E ASSESSEE ADMITTED AND ACCEPTED THE SAME AND PAID THE TAX. T HE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CO NCEALED ANY PART OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE APEX COURT IN PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. V. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 EXAMINED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE. THE APEX COURT FOUND THAT TO ERR IS HUMAN. THE MOMENT IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE 4 I.T.A. NO.77/MDS/17 ASSESSEE, HE ACCEPTED AND PAID TAXES WITHOUT ANY HE SITATION. THEREFORE, IN SUCH A SITUATION, LEVY OF PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. MOREOVER, THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS ONLY ` 6,00,000/- AS PER THE DOCUMENT, WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED. THE NO TIONAL VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE NOTIONAL VALUE IS ADOPTED ONLY FOR THE PU RPOSE OF COMPUTING INCOME-TAX ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY. THIS VALUE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN T HE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY RECEIVED ` 6,00,000/- AS SALE CONSIDERATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY, THE SAME HAS TO BE CONS IDERED. HAD THERE BEEN ANY MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS RECEIVED OVER AND ABOVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED, THE MATTER WOULD STAND DIFFERENTLY. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR NOT EVEN WHISPER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED. IN THO SE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, WE AR E UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, ORD ERS OF BOTH THE 5 I.T.A. NO.77/MDS/17 LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE PENALTY LEV IED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,84,576/- IS DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 TH JUNE, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 29 TH JUNE, 2017. KRI. - +056 76'0 /COPY TO: 1. )* /APPELLANT 2. +,)* /RESPONDENT 3. / 80 () /CIT(A)-5, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-9, CHENNAI 5. 69 +0 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.