TARA DEVI,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-3, RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 89/RAN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 July 2020AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as there was no indication of on-money or cash transactions, and the discrepancy was solely based on the stamp value adopted for registration purposes. It was neither a case of concealment nor furnishing inadequate particulars.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared a sale consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/- for a property, while the stamp duty value for registration was Rs. 15.75 lakh. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied solely based on the difference between declared sale consideration and stamp duty value, in the absence of any evidence of cash transactions or concealment of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI, ‘E’COURT,AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Respondent: Shri A. K. Mohanti, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Hearing: 13/07/2020Pronounced: 31/07/2020

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench (Oral):

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 is directed against the CIT(A)-Ranchi’s order dated 27/11/2018 passed in case no. CIT(A), Ranchi/10061/2017-18 involving penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’).

Case called twice. None appeared at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded as ex parte.

2.

With the able assistance of ld. Sr. DR, we notice from a perusal of AO’s penalty order dated 29.06.2017 that he has levied the impugned penalty of Rs. 2,95,610/- in the ground that the assessee had declared actual sale consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/- as against that stamp value for purpose of registration to the tune of Rs.

Tara Devi A.Y. 2014-15 15.75 lakh. There is no indication in either of the lower authorities’ order that the said sale deed involved on money or cash as transaction since it is a case of stamp value adopted for the purpose of registration only. We hold in view of this clinching aspect it is neither a case of concealment nor that of furnishing inadequate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. This penalty is directed to be deleted therefore.

3.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 31.07.2020

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →