MOHINI SRIVASTAVA,BHOPAL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 255/IND/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Mohini Shrivastava, the appellant, contesting a penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The penalty was related to an addition of Rs. 7,08,800 to the assessee's income, which was the difference between the declared sale consideration of Rs. 23,00,000 and the fair market value determined by the DVO at Rs. 30,08,800 under section 50C. The assessee argued that there was no concealment or inaccurate furnishing of income particulars, as the difference arose from a valuation estimate and not from any undisclosed income. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, referencing a similar case (Anil Bhatewara vs ITO) and noting that the actual sale consideration received was not disputed by the A.O.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35855 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Anil Bhatewara vs ITO, CIT vs. Madan Theatre, Renu Hingorani vs ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH PORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S ASHISH GOYAL; N. D
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Capital Gains; Valuation report
• Section: 271(1)(c); 50C

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, इंदौर Ûयायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.255/Ind/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Smt. Mohini Shrivastava, HIG-2/3,Geetanjali Complex, Indore Vs. ITO 1(1), Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ACWPS6390R Assessee by S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 09.10.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assesse is directed against the order dated 19.03.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centers,(NFAC), Delhi arising from penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y.2009-10. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “01.The assessee has not concealed any particulars of income nor has she filed any accurate particulars thereof and as such levy of ITA No.255/Ind/2024 Smt. Mohini Shrivastava 2 penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is absolutely arbitrary, baseless, Irreasonable, unlawful and contrary to prevailing legal standards/practices. Therefore, the same deserves to be deleted. Mere difference in Sale Consideration and Value as per Section 50C/DVO's Valuation on Account of Capital gains does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 02. That the DVO's Report is merely an Opinion in respect of Valuation of a piece of land and not a concrete evidence to establish that the assesse did receive the Sale Consideration of Rs. 30,08,800/- resulting into Concealment of Income in filing inaccurate Particulars thereof attracting Provisions of Section 271(1)(c). 03. The assessee craves leave to add or amend any other grounds of appeal at the me of hearing.” 3. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in the quantum proceedings this Tribunal remanded the matter to the A.O for determination of fair market value u/s 50C(2) of the Act. In the remand proceedings the DVO determined the fair market value of the property at Rs.30,08,800/- as against the actual consideration declared by the assessee at Rs.23,00,000/- and consequentially an addition of Rs.7,08,800/- was made by the A.O u/s 50C of the I.T Act to the capital gain of the assessee. The A.O has levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of Rs.7,08,800/- made u/s 50C of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR has further contended that the addition made by the A.O is under deeming provisions of Section 50C and further based on estimation of fair market value by the ITA No.255/Ind/2024 Smt. Mohini Shrivastava 3 DVO and therefore, the case of the assessee does not fall in the category of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income attracting the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench dated 28.10.2016 in case of Anil Bhatewara vs ITO in ITA No.430/Ind/2016. 4. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The A.O has levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the addition made u/s 50C of the I.T. Act to the capital gain of the assessee. The assessee has declared the sale consideration of Rs.23,00,000/- as actual consideration received by the assessee which was not disputed by the A.O but the addition was made under the deeming provisions of Section 50C of the Act. In the quantum proceedings this Tribunal remanded the matter to the record of the A.O for determination of fair market value of the property after making a reference to the DVO. In the remand proceedings as per the Valuation Report of the DVO the fair market value of the property was determined at ITA No.255/Ind/2024 Smt. Mohini Shrivastava 4 Rs.30,08,800/- as against the actual sale consideration of Rs.23,00,000/- and consequently the A.O has made an addition of Rs.7,08,800/- by applying the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. Thus, it is clear that the addition was made by the A.O on the basis of determination of fair market value by the DVO which is an estimation by an expert. The A.O has not doubted the actual sale consideration received by the assessee therefore, the question of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income does not arise. This Tribunal in case of Anil Bhatewara vs ITO (supra) while considering an identical issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act has held in para 3 of the order as under: “3. We have heard both the sides. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the issue in controversy is whether the assessee has sold the property at Rs.9,60,000/- while the Registrar has taken the market value at Rs.13,86,000/-, the penalty can be imposed u/s 271 is decided by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Madan Theatre (supra) wherein it was decided as under :- \"Thus obviously, it is only on account of deeming provisions of s.50C, the A.O. has made the add by adopting the sale consideration of Rs.5,19,77,000/- being the value adopted for the purpose of stamp valuation. The Revenue has also not shown as to how the assessee could be held to have actually received this amount which is in excess the amount of Rs.2,51,50,000. It has also not been shown as to whether any corresponding addition has been made in the hands of the buyer. In any case, the issue is also covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Renu Hingorani (supra). In the circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITA No.255/Ind/2024 Smt. Mohini Shrivastava 5 Tribunal in the case of Renu Hingorani (supra) as also on account of the fact that the Revenue has not been able to dislodge the findings of the learned CIT(A) that the bona fides of the assessee are genuine, the findings of the learned CIT(A) stand confirmed. In the circumstances, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.\" 5.1 Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee has declared all the relevant facts and details regarding the sale consideration of the property sold by the assessee and addition was made by the A.O by applying deeming provisions of Section 50C of the Act then the case of the assessee would not fall in the category of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income attracting the penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the penalty levied by the A.O u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is deleted. 6. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.10.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (VIJAY PAL RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member Indore,_09.10.2024 Dev/Sr. PS ITA No.255/Ind/2024 Smt. Mohini Shrivastava 6 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore "