Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"6. The Assessing Officer· in his penalty order has stated that the appellant has filed original return of income on 03.12.2007 who has not disclosed the capital gain earned. The appellant filed a revised return on 04.06.2008 which itself is not a valid revised return as the original return was not filed within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1). Even in the revised return the appellant has shown capital gains at `. 1,82,567 on the basis of the sale consideration stated to be actually received. The assessing officer has made out a clear case against the appellant by stating that he has not declared the capital gains in the original return of income, which itself was not filed within due date. The Assessing Officer has also rejected the appellant's claim that he is innocent or ignorant' of the guideline value on the ground that being a seller the appellant himself signed the documents in the presence of Registering Authority on the stamp paper. The value of the property sold by the appellant is determined on the guideline value of the property and it is invariably mentioned in the document itself before the registration of the sale deed takes place.

10. In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the assessee's revised return stood duly accepted as a 'valid' return and the assessment was completed (supra) and merely because the Assessing Officer invoked section 50C(2) and adopted guideline value to be the actual sale consideration and made addition in the assessee's income automatically become a case attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the "Act". Therefore, we hold that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Hence, we accept the issue in favour of the assessee and allow the instant appeal.