SHRI BABARAM R. KADAM, MUMBAI V. ITO -1(1), THANE

ITA 845/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6641 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 142(1); 143(1); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 845/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) Shri Babaram .R. Kadam, 2701,A- Wing, Acura Rustomjee Urbania, Majaswada, Balkum, Thane(West) – 400 606 Maharashtra Vs. ITO – 1(1) Ashar IT Park, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Estate, Thane west - 400064. Maharashtra ./ज आइआर ./PAN/GIR No. : DUZPK3264C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mr.C.T Mathews. Sr.AR Date of Hearing 08.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2022 आद श / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)Delhi passed u/s 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,97,591/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No. 845/Mum/2021 Shri Babaram R. Kadam, Mumbai. - 2 - 2. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has income from capital gains.The assesseee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 on 15.08.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,83,240/- and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under the CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act are issued. In compliance, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the details and the case was discussed. The Assessing officer (A.O) on perusal of the details found that the assessee has sold immovable property, as per the registered agreement of sale value of Rs.20,50,000/- and whereas the market value of the property as per the stamp valuation authority is Rs.31,50,000/-.The A.O dealt on the applicability of provisions of Sec.50C of the Act and observed that the assessee has not filed any explanations on the disputed issue and made addition of difference in value of Rs.10,50,500/- u/sec50C of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs. 13,33,740/-and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 20.11.2017. 3. Subsequently, the A.O. has initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The A.O. considered the findings of the scrutiny Assesseement and has issued show cause notice for levy of penalty. But there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee and also no explanations are filed. Finally the A.O. observed that the assessee has failed to submit the ITA No. 845/Mum/2021 Shri Babaram R. Kadam, Mumbai. - 3 - reasonable cause and levied penalty of Rs. 1,97,411/- and passed the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31-05-2018. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A).Whereas the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the A.O in levying the penalty and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 5. We heard the Ld. DR. submissions and perused the material on record and none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The sole crux of the disputed issue is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on difference in the market value as per stamp valuation authority and the registered agreement of sale. The A.O has made the addition in the assessment order invoking the deeming provisions U/sec50C of the Act. The A.O. has not doubted the registered agreement of sale and for various reasons and circumstances the assessee could not file the explanations on reasonable cause in the penalty and appellate proceedings. The A.O. having accepted the registered document of sale as valid and applied the deeming provisions u/sec50C of the Act and made addition of the notional value. Hence it cannot be presumed that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. We Considering the facts, circumstances, provisions of the law and the ratio of the Honble Supreme court decision CIT Vs Reliance Petro products (322 ITR 158) (SC) are of the opinion ITA No. 845/Mum/2021 Shri Babaram R. Kadam, Mumbai. - 4 - that the penalty cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing officer to delete the penalty and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.03.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 10.03.2022 KRK, PS /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. / The Appellant 2. / The Respondent. 3. आ र आ / The CIT(A) 4. आ र आ ( ) / Concerned CIT 5. "#$ % & &' , आ र ) र*, हमद द / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. % -. / 0 / Guard file. ान ु सार/ BY ORDER, " & //True Copy// 1. ( Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai