Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Ravish Sood (JM)
O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-
The revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 15-05-2012 passed by Ld CIT(A)-33, Mumbai deleting the penalty of Rs.10,10,249/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice by RPAD. Hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.
We have heard Ld D.R and perused the record. The facts relating to the case are discussed in brief. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold an immovable property for a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs and accordingly offered capital gain thereon by taking the sale consideration as Rs.5.00 lakhs. The AO
2 Ms. Nandita Mirani noticed that the stamp duty valuation of the property stood at Rs.50,02,000/- and hence he recomputed the capital gain by adopting the sale consideration as Rs.50,02,000/- in terms of sec. 50C of the Act. Later the assessing officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.10,10,249/- on the amount of Rs.45,02,000/-, being the difference amount of sale consideration adopted in terms of sec. 50C of the Act. The Ld CIT(A), however, deleted the penalty by holding the addition of Rs.45,02,000/- to the sale consideration has been made by the AO on technical ground by applying the provisions of sec.50C of the Act and the same would not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A), the revenue has filed this appeal.
We notice that an identical issue was considered by co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Renu Hingorani (ITA No.2210/Mum/2010 dated 22-12- 2010), wherein the Tribunal has expressed the view that merely because the assessing officer made the addition on the basis of valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority, the same would not conclusively prove that the sale consideration as per the agreement was incorrect and wrong. It was further held that the addition made on account of deeming provision does not ipso facto attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has also taken identical view on this matter and hence we do not find any reason to interfere with his order. Accordingly we confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A).