M/S. AMAR INDUSTRIES,UNJHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, PATAN

That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming penalty against the facts and relevant case law applicable to facts of the case. 2. Learned CIT (A) ought to considered all undisputed facts & explanation of the assessee summarized by him in para 5 of his order and has erred in ignoring reply of the assessee to AO to keep the proceedings in absence in view appeal preferred to ITAT against additions and conformation of the same by CIT (A) . Both authorities having missed to consider reply of the assessee dated 19.03.2014,' both orders under appeal be decided null and void. 3. In view of pending appeal of the Tribunal on merits of the addition, without seeing or noticing good and valid reply to show-cause penalty order ought to have been deleted in toto. 4. Appellant having disclosed all material facts truly and fully, no penalty could be levied without any lawful grounds. 5. Both authorities below have erred in interpreting and applying provision of sec. 271(1)(c) with special reference to its explanation - 1 etc. 6. That on facts and in law, all 3 addition being unwarranted of facts penalty ought to have deleted. 7. Assessee begs to rely on grounds of appeal raised in Tribunal copy of which is against attached herewith for ready reference.” 3. In this case, the assessee had sold factory land, building along with other assets. The stamp duty was paid at the time of registration of document before the sub-registrar by adopting the value of land at Rs. 59,08,160/-. The assessee has objected the value of land adopted by the sub-registrar before the Dy. Collector Stamp Valuation Authority. The Dy. Director had reduced the sale value of land and building to Rs. 46,46,115/- as against Rs. 59,08160/-. Thereafter, the assessing officer has computed the long term capital gain on sale of land at Rs. 35,23,153/- and short term capital gain on sale of building and material at Rs. 100282/- u/s. 143(3) of the act. The assessing officer had also made addition of Rs. 14,060/- for undisclosed interest income from UGVCL. Subsequently, vide order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act dated 31/03/2014, the assessing officer has imposed penalty of Rs. 9,73,550/- for concealment of particulars of income on the basis of aforesaid additions made in the case of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has sustained the penalty on the basis of quantum addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee.