Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Swati Tomar vs. DCIT

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining penalty of Rs.4,12,330/- under sec. 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act as against levy of penalty under sec. 271AAB of I.T. Act in search case which based on higher value adopted by Sub-Registrar for registration of plots of land on conversion of pre-owned plots of land by assessee, already appearing in her Balance sheet when purchased as unapproved plots of land.

2.1 The vide application dated 23.04.2025, the assessee raised the addition ground for adjudication which reads as under :

In the case of Swati Tomar Vs. Dy. CIT, C.C.-1, Jaipur (ITA 1345/JPR/2024 for the A.Y. 2023-24) MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS Ground No. (1) raised in memo of appeal (Form No. 36) could not be raised before Id. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) due to oversight: "Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining penalty of Rs.4,12,330/-under sec. 271(1)(c) of LT. Act as against levy of penalty under sec. 271AAB of I.T. Act in search case which based on higher value adopted by Sub-Registrar for registration of plots of land on conversion of pre-owned plots of land by assessee, already appearing in her Balance sheet when purchased as unapproved plots of land".

5).Quantum appeal before both the Appellate authorities was dismissed but was admitted under sec. 260A of I.T. Act by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

Ground No. (1). Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining penalty of Rs.4,12,330/- under sec. 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act as against levy of penalty under sec. 271AAB of I.T. Act in search case which is based on higher value adopted by Sub-Registrar for registration of plots of land on conversion of pre-owned plots of land by assessee, already appearing in her Balance sheet when purchased as unapproved plots of land.

Swati Tomar vs. DCIT

8. The ld DR is heard who relied on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order of the ld. CIT(A).

9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. First we take up the additional ground raised by the assessee wherein the assessee contended that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining penalty of Rs.4,12,330/- under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act as against levy of penalty under sec. 271AAB of I.T. Act in search case which based on higher value adopted by Sub-Registrar for registration of plots of land on conversion of pre-owned plots of land by assessee, already appearing in her Balance sheet when purchased as unapproved plots of land. Record reveals that in this case search was conducted on 30.10.2014 and the law has been amended w.e.f. 01.07.2012 that when there has been a search the penalty is leviable as per provision of section 271AAB of the Act which read as under: