Case Law Details
Shri C Basker Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai) ITA No. 997/Mds/2012, 997/Mds/2012, Date of pronouncement : 12.10.2012
In scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer took cognizance of the fact that the assessee had sold immovable property on 30.11.2006, in which he was having 1/2 share and the other 1/2 share belonged to his brother namely Shri C. Vijayakumar [assessee’s connected case I.T.A. No. 998/Mds/2012] and the assessee in his revised return dated 04.06.2008 had declared the sale consideration of Rs. 28,54,200/- for the purpose of computing capital gains. The Assessing Officer noted from the ITS details that the immovable property was valued at Rs.95,40,000/-. The assessee clarified before the Assessing Officer that the said value as noticed by the Assessing Officer was only the guideline value for the purpose of stamp fees and registration. The Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee’s explanation and by invoking section 50C(2) of the “Act”, adopted deemed sale consideration as Rs. 95,40,000/-
He also initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee did not file any appeal against the application of guideline value by the AO. The AO levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act inter alia on the ground that but for information obtained by him from AIR data, correct capital gains would have escaped assessment as the assessee failed to disclose the same either in original return of income or in the revised return of income filed subsequently.
Aggrieved by the levy of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who upheld the action of the AO.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Last para of article gives impression that Penalty was upheld by ITAT while reading full article, it gives impression that Penalty is not applicable because section 50C(2) is a deeming provision. Contradictions ???
Author should clarify it.