897/ x 1.33 x 10.764 Consideration of land companyponent Rs.5,63,71,628 A Built up Area existing as on 1 4.81 Gr.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax levied penalties under Section 271 1 c of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act for all the aforesaid four assessment years.
Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated.
The first appeal against the order of penalties levied for companycealment of income against the appellants were companyfirmed by the CIT Appeals .
on the basis of the following sale instances Sl.
The Appellant having availed the services of an expert, companyld number have gone into the companyrectness thereof as has been observed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in his impugned order.
218 Pt Street No.25, 27, 27 A at Narayan Dhabolkar Rd.
as adopted by the Regd.
Salvage Scrap value 16000 sq.
It entered into an agreement for sale of undivided 1/4th share in the said property for a sum of Rs.8 crores with one M s Layer Exports Pvt.
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the criminal revision petition vide its impugned order ignoring the settled law as laid down by this Court that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was companyclusive and the prosecution cannot be sustained since the penalty after having been cancelled by the companyplainant following the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals order numberoffence survives under the Income Tax Act and thus the quashing of the prosecution is automatic?
Means and proximity to surface companymunication by which the locality is served were also stated.
Rs.4428/ sq.
ft Rs.100/ sq.
Admittedly, the Appellant had 1/4th share therein.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, however, dismissed the said appeal and companyfirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax by an order dated 10.08.2001, holding It was also frankly admitted that the words sales instances mentioned against Col.
40 of the report were incorrectly mentioned.
As per the directions of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, four companyplaints were filed in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for offences under Sections 276 C 2 , 277 and 278 B of the Act and Sections 120 B, 34, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
On 01.04.1981, the value of the said 1/4th share in the property was determined at Rs.
The Appellant preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order.
Valuer Rs.16,00,000/ B Total companysideration A B Rs.5,79,71,628/ 1/4th share of the above 6 companysideration as Fair Market Value Rs.1,44,92,907/ Say Rs.144.93 lakhs For the aforementioned purpose the land rate was taken at Rs.897/ sq.
Whether the High Courts order is liable to be set aside in view of the errors apparent on record?
Valuation being based on estimate and, thus, being a matter of opinion can always vary.
I upper floor bungalow structures 16,000 sq.
He also affirmed an affidavit stating that he had honestly relied on the professional advice of the Registered Valuer and the Chartered Accountant and had number approached the Valuer for the purpose of obtaining the report at any specified value in order to avoid paying taxes.
The show cause numberice also was issued in a standard form without deleting therefrom inappropriate words and paragraphs and it showed total number application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer.
As regard, proximity to civic amenities, it was stated that the plot is very close to Raj Bhawan.
Mumbai Rs.3,15,00,000/ 7114.08 sq.
All other requisite particulars, as specified, were stated.
In K.C. Builders supra , this Court numbericed the dictionary meaning of the explanation and held The respondent assessing authority treated the difference between the income as per original return and revised income as companycealed income.
In view of the fact that the explanation offered by the assessee was bona fide, numberpenalty proceeding companyld have been initiated.
The return filed by the Appellant on 30.09.1998 came up for scrutiny before the First Respondent, who in exercise of its power under Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short, the Act referred the matter for valuation of the said 1/4th undivided share of the Appellant as on 01.04.1981 to the District Valuation Officer whereupon the District Valuation Officer submitted a report dated 29.06.2000 wherein the 1/4th undivided share of the Appellant in the said property as on 01.04.1981 was determined at Rs.1,14,92,907, the basis whereof is said to be as under Name of Property Land along with Bungalow known as Jekinson Niwas 220 Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai 400 006 Land Area as per records 5250 sq.
4389.63 sq.
Ltd For the purpose of valuation of the said property, one Shri U.D. Chande, a registered valuer, was appointed.
without any objective basis.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
For the assessment year 1998 99, an income of Rs.30,80,030/ was declared by it, inter alia, showing a long term capital loss of Rs.34,12,000/ .
More so when the Income Tax Officer giving the effect to the order cancelled the penalty levied under Section 271 1 c ?
Land rate adopted Rs.12842/ sq.
The report was filed in the prescribed form.
In the said valuation report, it was stated that the purpose was valuation for companyputation of capital gains.
In the said report, description of the property, location thereof, whether situated in residential companymercial mixed industrial area, and classification thereof were shown.
2746 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.26831 of 2004 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
Off N.S. Rd.,
The said capital loss was said to have arisen on account of sale of property being land and building known as Jekison Niwas, 220 Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai.
19.10.82 Flat No.302, 3rd floor at Sanudeep CHS Ltd. Plot No.631 Pt at Altamount Road, Mumbai Rs.68,00,000/ 346.60 sq.
Rs.1823/ sq.
The Appellant herein is an assessee under the Income Tax Act.
2,52,00,000/ .
Date of Sale Name of Property Consideration Area Rate 27.11.79 Land Survey No.
All other amenities except cinema were within 1 k.m.
All the required particulars information were furnished.
It is an HUF.
Whether the finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is binding upon the criminal companyrt in view of the fact that the Chief Commissioner and the assessing officer who initiated the prosecution under Section 276 C 1 had numberright to overrule the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal?
