Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Assessing Officer had levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) for additions made to Short Term Capital Gain, income under section 56(2)(vii), and unexplained investment. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty.
Held
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had already deleted the penalty in a similar, duplicate appeal concerning the same impugned order. The Tribunal observed that additions based on stamp valuation where no material suggested otherwise, do not automatically attract penalty for inaccurate particulars.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars is justified when the additions were based on stamp valuation rates, and a coordinate bench has already deleted similar penalties.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 50C, 56(2)(vii), 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 16.10.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15 in relation to penalty levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income.
Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.06.2017 in respect of three additions ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.06.2017 in respect of three additions ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.06.2017 in respect of three additions as under :
Short Term Capital Gain Short Term Capital Gain Rs.21,72,253/- Rs.21,72,253/ 2. U/s 56(2)(vii) U/s 56(2)(vii) Rs.11,28,405/- Rs.11,28,405/ 3. U/s 69C as unexplained investment U/s 69C as unexplained investment Rs.4,60,000/- Rs.4,60,000/ 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by way of the impugned order. way of the impugned order.
Before us, the Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee sought for Ld. Counsel for the assessee sought for adjournment on the ground that a duplicate appeal against the adjournment on the ground that a duplicate appeal against the adjournment on the ground that a duplicate appeal against the same impugned order was filed by the assessee, which was same impugned order was filed by the assessee same impugned order was filed by the assessee registered at and was heard on registered at and was heard on registered at ITA No. 3892/Mum/2023 and was heard on 01.07.2024. Before us, t Before us, the Registry pointed out that the Co out that the Co- ordinate Bench has already pronounced order in the said appeal on ordinate Bench has already pronounced order in the said appeal on ordinate Bench has already pronounced order in the said appeal on 10.07.2024, wherein the penalty levied and sustained by the Ld. wherein the penalty levied and sustained by the Ld. wherein the penalty levied and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) has been deleted. The relevant part of the Co CIT(A) has been deleted. The relevant part of the Co- -ordinate Bench is reproduced as under: is reproduced as under:
“4. We notice in We notice in this factual backdrop that the formal twin quantum this factual backdrop that the formal twin quantum additions herein additions represent the difference between actual additions herein additions represent the difference between actual additions herein additions represent the difference between actual sale/purchase considerations vis sale/purchase considerations vis-à-vis stamp valuation thereof, wherein vis stamp valuation thereof, wherein latter amounts) stand adopted for computing capital gains and inco latter amounts) stand adopted for computing capital gains and inco latter amounts) stand adopted for computing capital gains and income from other' sources; under section 50C and section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, from other' sources; under section 50C and section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, from other' sources; under section 50C and section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, respectively. There is no material in the case file which could suggest that respectively. There is no material in the case file which could suggest that respectively. There is no material in the case file which could suggest that the assessee had either received or paid anything over and above the the assessee had either received or paid anything over and above the the assessee had either received or paid anything over and above the former actual sale/purchase price former actual sale/purchase price stated in the relevant agreements. It is stated in the relevant agreements. It is thus a case wherein learned lower authorities have wrongly treated the thus a case wherein learned lower authorities have wrongly treated the thus a case wherein learned lower authorities have wrongly treated the stamp valuation rate of the correspondence between sale and purchase stamp valuation rate of the correspondence between sale and purchase stamp valuation rate of the correspondence between sale and purchase transaction as inaccurate particulars submitted by the assessee. transaction as inaccurate particulars submitted by the assessee. transaction as inaccurate particulars submitted by the assessee.
5. The factual position is hardly any different qua the third quantum factual position is hardly any different qua the third quantum factual position is hardly any different qua the third quantum addition of unexplained investment wherein the assessee could not addition of unexplained investment wherein the assessee could not addition of unexplained investment wherein the assessee could not substantive his explanation proving sources thereof in the assessment substantive his explanation proving sources thereof in the assessment substantive his explanation proving sources thereof in the assessment proceedings. It is in these peculiar facts that we deem i proceedings. It is in these peculiar facts that we deem it appropriate to t appropriate to quote CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (2010)322 ITR 158 (SC) that quote CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (2010)322 ITR 158 (SC) that quote CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (2010)322 ITR 158 (SC) that quantum and penalty are parallel proceedings wherein each and every quantum and penalty are parallel proceedings wherein each and every quantum and penalty are parallel proceedings wherein each and every disallowance/addition made in course of the former does not ipso facto disallowance/addition made in course of the former does not ipso facto disallowance/addition made in course of the former does not ipso facto attract the latter provisio attract the latter provision, to delete the impugned penalty in very terms. n, to delete the impugned penalty in very terms. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly.” 4.1 Accordingly, the adjournment application o Accordingly, the adjournment application of the assessee was f the assessee was rejected. The instant appeal being duplicate he instant appeal being duplicate, held to be infructuous held to be infructuous and dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on nounced in the open Court on 19/08/2024. /08/2024.