SH.PAWAN ANAND,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

PDF
ITA 33/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)3 pages

No AI summary yet for this case.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.05.2025

आदेश /O R D E R

PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 28.02.2024 for the AY 2016-17 in sustaining the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

ITA No.33/DDN/2024

2.

We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of

the authorities below. In this case, we noticed that an addition of

Rs.10,68,000/- was made while completing the assessment u/s

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, being the difference between the

stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration. The assessee

purchased a flat in Dehradun for an amount of Rs.21,67,410/- out of

which the sale consideration was Rs.20 lakhs and the stamp duty

and other legal expenses were Rs.1,67,410/-. However, the market

value as per the circle rate was Rs.30,68,000/- and therefore there

was a difference of Rs.10,68,000/- between the actual

consideration and stamp value and this amount was added as

undisclosed income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer while

completing the assessment. The Assessing Officer also initiated

penalty proceedings for concealed particulars of income and levied

penalty of Rs.2,93,083/-. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the

penalty.

3.

In our considered view the difference between the stamp

duty value and the actual sale consideration which was arrived on

account of deeming provision u/s 50C cannot be said to be

concealment of particulars of income. The assessee here neither

concealed his income nor the particulars of such income so as to

ITA No.33/DDN/2024

attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, we direct the

Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the

Act.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23/05/2025

Sd/- Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23.05.2025 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

SH.PAWAN ANAND,DEHRADUN vs ITO, DEHRADUN | BharatTax