Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on section 50c

2619 views 3 replies

Whether Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is appilable in case of addition in return income was due to difference in fair Market Value adopted by DVO & Sales Agreement.

and any case law with similar fact?

Fact of the Case:

1. AO has invoked section 50C and computed capital gain as per the Stamp Duty Valuation, and also initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c)

2. CIT Appeal has partly allowed the appeal and refered for Valuation to Department Valuation Officer.

3. Report as per DVO was just increase by 2Lacs, hence income was recomputed accordingly (giving the effect as per DVO Report as per order of CIT appeal).

Replies (3)
Similar case ... Hope this helps ... /mobile/experts/details.asp?mod_id=1236204

If the actual consideration is more than what is declared then there is a concealment. s.271(1)c can not be invoked on the basis of deeming fiction

 

There is case of CIT Vs. Madan Theatres (calcutta HC), wherein it was held that Penatly u/s 271(1)(c) can not be levied 

The assessee sold property for a consideration of Rs. 2.50 crore. However, for the purpose of stamp duty, the property was valued at Rs. 5.19 crore and stamp duty was paid on that value. The assessee offered capital gains on the basis that the sale consideration was Rs. 2.50 crore. The AO invoked s. 50C and held that the sale consideration had to be taken at Rs. 5.19 crore and capital gains computed on that basis. The AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was deleted by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal by relying on Renu hingorani (Simillar facts) [ITAT] On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

Though the assessee could have disputed the valuation on the basis of the deemed value and chose not to do so, the fact remains that the actual amount received was offered for taxation. It is only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) started. The revenue has failed to produce any iota of evidence that the assessee actually received one paise more than the amount shown to have been received by him. As such, there is no scope to admit the appeal

 

There is also Chimanlal Manilal Patel V ACIT (ITAT Ahmedaba) on the same lines

For penality u/s 270(1)(c)... https://www.itatonline.org/articles_new/index.php/penalty-us-2711c-a-comprehensive-analysis-k-c-singhal-advocate/

Leave a Reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Company
09 June 2026
Accounts Associate

S Madan and CO

New Delhi

Graduate (Any)

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 30 June 2026
Taxation Content Writer Intern

Interactive Media Pvt Ltd.

New Delhi

CA Inter

View Details
Company
Featured 24 June 2026
HEAD - AUDIT AND TAXATION

A R JADHAV AND ASSOCIATES

Mumbai

CA Inter

View Details
Company
29 June 2026
ACCOUNTANT

SANDEEP AASHISH & CO

Araria

B.Com

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 24 June 2026
ARTICLE ASSISTANT

BHUPINDER SHAH AND COMPANY

New Delhi

CA Inter

View Details
Company
24 June 2026
Senior Account (VA Client Operations)

Karbon Business

Bengaluru

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 28 June 2026
Article Assistant

Sharma Chetan And Company

Gurgaon

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 27 June 2026
Article

SNCO

Mumbai

CA Inter

View Details