Super Cool Pvt.Ltd., Navsari vs Department Of Income Tax

"[1] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.3,08,094/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income."

2. Assessee filed its return of income for the year declaring total loss of Rs.583/-. The scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) was completed by determining total income of Rs.13,72,791/- being difference of value of N.A. Land as per sale deed any valuation determined by Stamp Duty Valuation Authority. Subsequently penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) were initiated and determined at Rs.3,08,094/-.

2.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, who having considered the submission on behalf of assessee deleted penalty in question. Same has been opposed on behalf of Revenue inter alia submitting that CIT(A) was not justified in deleting penalty of Rs.3,08,094/- u/s. 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income of furnishing inaccurate particulars of ITA No. 2174/Ahd/11 A.Y. 06-07 [ACIT vs. Supe r Cool Private Limite d] Page 3

income. During assessment proceeding, Assessing Officer revealed that assessee had sold N.A land bearing Revenue S.No. 180 paiky 2886 sq. meters, at Kabilpore Dist Navsari for Rs.4,66,000/- as per sale deed Regd. No.1486/06 dated 22.02.2006 and S.No. 180 paiky 2906 sq. meters, at Kabilpore Dist Navsari for Rs.4,69,000/-as per sale deed Regd. No.1799/06 dated 04.03.2006 to different parties. On further verification and information obtained from Stamp Duty Valuation Cell u/s.133(6) of the Act, it was revealed that the market value of said land was adopted at Rs. 11,54,400/- and Rs. 11,52,400/- respectively. Therefore, excess documentation value worked out at Rs. 6,88,400/- and 6,83,400/- respectively aggregating to Rs.13,71,800/-. Assessee could not offer explanation, so, same was added to the total income of assessee u/s.50C of the Act and subsequently Assessing Officer levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the tune of Rs. 13,71,800/- and levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In appeal, having considered the same, CIT(A) deleted the same by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 (SCJ, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that merely because the claim of assessee was not allowed by applying the provisions of law in terms of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). In the instant case, neither concealment was detected nor assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the provision of section 271(1)(c) is not applied ITA No. 2174/Ahd/11 A.Y. 06-07 [ACIT vs. Supe r Cool Private Limite d] Page 4

in this case. Accordingly, CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty in question. Same is upheld by us. Same needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same.

3. As a result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 31st day of March, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 31/03/2015 True Copy S.K.SINHA

आदे श क ूितिल'प अमे'षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-

1. राजःव / Revenue

2. आवेदक / Assessee

3. संबिं धत आयकर आयु0 / Concerned CIT

4. आयकर आयु0- अपील / CIT (A)

5. 'वभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6. गाड9 फाइल / Guard file.

By order/आदे श से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ।