PARTISTHA COMMERCIAL CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly levied section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.7,53,129/- relating to quantum addition of Rs.38,84,000/- representing difference between actual sale price of the housing units and circle rate thereof i.e. Rs.49,00,000/- and Rs.87,84,000/-; Partistha Commercial Centre Pvt. Ltd.

The tribunal has given it’s due consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions against and in support of the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty wherein both the learned lower authorities held the assessee to have concealed and furnished inaccurate particulars of income regarding addition made u/s 43CA of the Act. There could be hardly any dispute that the instant statutory provision comes into play wherein a difference of more than 10% margin rises between actual sale price and stamp value of the residential units/stock-in-trade sold by an assessee’s. There is not even an iota of evidence against the assessee that it had actually charged anything over and above the actual sale price since an addition u/s 43CA is more in the nature of deemed income only. The tribunal therefore quotes CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) to conclude that the same does not automatically result in levy of section 271(1)(c) penalty. The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal stands accepted. Partistha Commercial Centre Pvt. Ltd.