SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

ORDER

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM

2. That the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact of deduction being investment in construction of factory building which was done in piecemeal in four years from F.Y. 1991-92 to 1996-97. This aspect was in knowledge of auditor,

2 M/s. A Daga Steel & Industrial Corporation vs ITO, Ward- 2(2), Jaipur accountant and also was submitted before the AO being part and parcel of balance sheet and depreciation chart which were submitted with the returns of income for the respective years. The authorities below had thus wrongly held that assessee has concealed particulars of income.’’ 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its e- return of income on 21-11-2013 declaring total income of Rs. 8,19,880/- including long term capital gain on sale of immovable property at Rs. 9,72,948/- after claiming the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 5,77,502/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO after verification and examination of evidence of indexed cost of acquisition determined the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.4,65,531/- . Therefore, while completing the assessment, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,11,971/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain. The AO subsequently initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 23,065/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 2.2 The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 2.3 I have heard the ld.AR as well as ld. DR and considered the relevant material available on record. The addition was made by the AO due to difference in indexed cost of acquisition of property which was sold by the assessee during the year under consideration. It is pertinent to note that during the assessment cost of acquisition. The assessee furnished all the details showing yearwise cost of construction of the building from F.Y. 1989-90 to 2001-02. As per these details furnished by the assessee, the AO has accepted the revised computation of indexed cost of acquisition. Thus it is a case where the assessee has produced all the details and particulars regarding the computation of Long Term Capital Gain as well as indexed cost of acquisition of the property in question. Since the construction of the property was spread over for more than 10 years, therefore, there was some discrepancy in the indexed cost of acquisition. The real cost of acquisition is not in dispute but due to cost of acquisition spread over for many years, the computation of indexed cost of acquisition is found varied from the original computation and claim made by the assessee. Once the assessee has produced all the facts and particulars regarding cost of acquisition of the property and if there is a mistake in computation of indexed cost of acquisition which is a matter of verification in the assessment proceedings then the same would not amount to furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. Merely because the AO in the assessment proceeding has arrived to a difference in the indexed cost of acquisition and there is no dispute regarding the actual cost of acquisition then the addition made on account of such computation will not ipso