*1* itxa.1164.12.25.doc kps IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY rt ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1164 OF 2012 ou Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant Versus M/s Fortune Hotels and Estates Pvt.Ltd.. ..Respondent C .......... Mr.Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate a/w Ms.Padma Divakar, for Appellant. h Mr.R.Murlidhar with Mr.A.K.Jasani, for Respondent. .......... ig CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND H A.K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 26th September, 2014 P.C. y 1 Heard Mr.Vimal Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing in ba support of this Appeal, which impugns order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.09.2011 allowing Assessee s Appeal and om deleting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr.Vimal Gupta submits that substantial question of law which arises for determination and consideration is whether, Tribunal was right in holding that penalty cannot be imposed with reference to addition of B deemed income under Section 50C of Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr.Vimal Gupta relies upon judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in case of Chuharmal V/s Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 172 ITR 250 (SC). 2 Upon perusal of order passed by Tribunal in its entirety and noting peculiar facts pertaining to Assessee we are of ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2015 09:23:32 ::: *2* itxa.1164.12.25.doc view that question as posed before us and contentions advanced need not be gone into in any further details. admitted rt factual position and which Tribunal noted is prevailing throughout. ou Assessee was owner of office premises at Nariman Point, Mumbai and he sold same during year previous to Assessment Year 2004 2005 and sale consideration was Rs.2 crores. Assessing C Officer noted that market value adopted by Registrar of Assurances for levy of stamp duty was Rs.3,72,42,000/ . In view thereof by taking recourse to Section 52C(2) Assessing Officer called upon h Assessee to show cause as to why full value of consideration received ig on transfer should not be adopted as per stamp valuation. Assessee insisted that question of valuation of property should be H referred to Departmental Valuation Officer. That was so referred and report was submitted by Valuation Officer dated 27.12.2006 determining market value of property at Rs.2,70,03,920/ . y Assessee maintained that value of Rs.2 crores is actual sale ba consideration received by it. However, this was not accepted and difference between consideration received and determination of Valuation Officer was declared as tax liability. om 3 To this extent there is no dispute and what later on followed was imposition of penalty. Tribunal held that this cannot be taken as case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income inasmuch as there B was registered sale deed and there was consideration mentioned therein. That ground was raised and therefore, document was forwarded to Valuer and for determination of value, by itself would not mean that Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has concealed income. In these peculiar circumstances imposition of penalty was not justified, is conclusion drawn. ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2015 09:23:32 ::: *3* itxa.1164.12.25.doc larger question posed for our consideration by Mr.Vimal Gupta really does not arise in peculiar facts of case. We leave that question and rt contentions based thereon open for being canvassed in appropriate ou case. Tribunal s order even if containing any reference to some deeming provision will not preclude or prevent Revenue from raising such contentions. With this clarification and finding that Tribunal s C order does not raise any substantial question of law that we proceed to dismiss Appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. h (A.K. Menon, J) ig (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) H y ba om B ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2015 09:23:32 ::: Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Fortune Hotels and Estates Pvt.Ltd