BHARAT EKNATH KANPILE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8, PUNE

These assessee‟s twins appeals & 322/PUN/2018; for assessment years 2009-10 & 2011-12, arise against the CIT(A)-6, Pune‟s orders; both dated 31.10.2017 passed in case no.PN/CIT(A)-V/DCIT Cir- 8/365/2013-14 and PN/CIT(A)-V/DCIT Cir-8/364/2013-14 respectively, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

It emerges at the outset that both these penalties in issue before us amounting to Rs.4,78,800/- and Rs.21,25,803/-; assessment year-wise, respectively hardly require us to examine the relevant facts at length. This is for the precise reason that the same pertain to assessee‟s „long term capital gains‟ computation made by the Assessing Officer after invoking section 50C of the Act to the tune of Rs.15,96,000/- and Rs.3,92,115/-; respectively. The Revenue‟s case all along has been that the said quantum unexplained long term capital gains‟ amounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars/concealment of such particulars of capital gains which attracts section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Mr. Murkunde drew strong support from both the learned lower authorities‟ action imposing the impugned penalty(ies) to this effect.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to vehement rival contentions and find no merits in Revenue‟s arguments. This is for the precise reason that the learned lower authorities had made section 50C addition(s) (supra) in both these assessment years without even indicating as to what was the difference in assessee‟s‟ declared price vis-à-vis actual stamp value; giving rise to the consequential sum, as determined by the DVO after due reference made by the assessing authority under sub-section (2) thereof. It is thus an instance wherein the quantum addition itself becomes a debatable issue since not satisfying the foregoing three clinching factors. Faced with this situation, we hold that the impugned penalty(ies) under challenge forming subject-matter of both these appeals is not sustainable in law and are directed to be deleted. The assessee succeeds in his instant sole substantive grievance.

These assessee‟s‟ twin appeals are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 17th day of November, 2022.