।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” (cid:586)ायपीठ पुणेम(cid:336)।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.181/PUN/2024 िनधार(cid:6981) ण वष (cid:6981) / Assessment Year: 2015-16

P Vijay Bhagchand Bafna, Plot No.39, shri Krishna Colony, Shirpur, Dist: Dhule- 425405. Maharashtra. AN: AAMPB2217J	V s	The DCIT, Circle-Dhule, Dhule
Appellant / Assessee		Respondent / Revenue

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee i.e. Vijay Bhagchand Bafana against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), [NFAC] u/sec.250 of the Income Tax Act, dated 30.11.2023 for A.Y.2015-16 emanating from the penalty order u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 25.03.2019.

Findings & Analysis :

2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. For the A.Y.2015-16 assessee has filed Return of Income electronically on 29.04.2016 declaring total income of Rs.23,93,238/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) received information that assessee had purchased agricultural land at Survey No.4/1A, Shirpur for Rs.36,00,000/- along with three other persons, but Government Valuation of said land was Rs.65,67,000/-. The AO issued noticed u/sec.148 on the ground that income has escaped assessment as per section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee filed Return of Income in response to notice u/sec.148 of the Act showing income at Rs.31,15,120/-. The assessment was completed accepting returned income. The AO levied penalty u/sec.271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.03.2019. The only issue is difference of actual amount paid by assessee for the purchase of agricultural land and the Government Valuation, the AO held that there was a deemed income as per Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act of Rs.7,41,750/-, though the assessee had offered Rs.7,41,750/- in the Return of Income filed u/sec.148 of the Act. Thus, in fact there was no addition in the assessment order passed u/sec.148 of the Act, as assessee had already offered the difference of Rs.7,41,750/- in the Return of Income filed u/sec.148 of the Act. During the Assessment Proceedings, assessee filed a Valuation Report issued by Sub-Registrar dated 27.08.2018 showing value at Rs.37,44,900/- of the impugned property.

3. Penaly u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on the ground that there was difference in Government Valuation and actual amount paid. In this case, assessee had disclosed all the facts before the AO. Assessee has not concealed any information. There is no addition in the Assessment Order, rather the Sub- Registrar vide letter dated 27.08.2018 valued the said property at Rs.37,44,900/-. Thus, there is dispute in the valuation of Sub-

Registrar.

3.1 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd Vs. CIT [2020] 117 taxmann.com 182 (Bombay) has held as under :

Quote“33. In Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra), Supreme Court examined meaning of the words 'particulars' and 'inaccurate'. As per Law Lexicon, the word 'particulars' means 'detail or details; the details of a claim or the separate items of an account'. Therefore, it was held that the word 'particulars' used in section 271(1)(c) of the Act would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. Referring to Webster's Dictionary where the word 'inaccurate' has been defined as 'not accurate, not exact or correct; not according to truth; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript', Supreme Court held that the two words i.e., 'inaccurate' and 'particulars' read in conjunction must mean that the details supplied in the return are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. It was held that mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Therefore, such claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document