IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.1647/Ahd/2013 Asstt. Year: 2005-2006 Late Smt.Lilaben P. Sanghvi ITO, Ward-2(4) Through L/h. Dr.Narendra P. Sanghvi Vs Ahmedabad. 22-23, Sadbhav Bunglow Opp: Shahibaug Telephone Exchange Shahibaug Ahmedabad 380 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.K. Patel Revenue by : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 13/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 17/10/2016 O RDER Assessee is in appeal against order of ld.CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad dated 26.11.2012 passed for Astt.Year 2005-06. 2. Solitary grievance of assessee is that ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty of Rs.27,651/- imposed by AO under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by 121 days. assessee has moved application under section 253(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961. It is pleaded in application that impugned order of ld.CIT(A) was received by assessee only on 27.5.2013, because order has been sent to old address mentioned in Form No.35 filed before First ITA No.1647/Ahd/2013 2 Appellate Authority by authorized representative of assessee inadvertently. Property at old address has been sold to one Shri Pritam Jain and assessee has already vacated from this premises to new address. As per instruction of CA of assessee, assessee enquired about same, and came to know about delivery of order at old address. Therefore, delay being occurred due to genuine reason may be condoned in interest of justice. 4. After going through explanation of assessee, I am convinced that assessee is prevented by sufficient reasons, because, authorized representative of assessee who have filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) has committed error by mentioning old address for communication. Due to this reason, order could not reach to assessee well in time. Therefore, I condone delay and proceed to decide appeal on merit. 5. assessee has sold plot of land situated at Ramyakunj. She has shown sale consideration at Rs.2,20,000/-, whereas for purpose of stamp duty valuation, value of land was adopted at Rs.3,21,200/-. ld.AO has made addition of Rs.1,01,211/- with help of section 50C of Income Tax Act. AO has initiated penalty proceedings qua this addition, and ultimately imposed penalty of Rs.27,655/-. Appeal to ld.CIT(A) did not bring any relief to assessee. 6. With assistance of ld.representatives, I have gone through record carefully. There is no dispute with regard to fact that addition to income of assessee was made with aid of section 50C of Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 50C is deeming provision, which empowers AO to deem sale consideration equal to amounts to which value has been adopted for purpose of payment of stamp duty. To my mind, this fiction cannot be extended for visiting assessee with penalty for concealment of ITA No.1647/Ahd/2013 3 income, because assessee could always plead that she had received only sale consideration of Rs.2,20,200/-, and had she applied under sub-section (2) of Section 50 for making reference to DVO, third figure would have come out. Under this circumstance, I am of view that assessee does not deserves to be visited with penalty. I allow appeal of assessee, and delete penalty. 7. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Court on 17th October, 2016 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER Late Smt.Lilaben P. Sanghvi Through L/h. Dr.Narendra P. Sanghvi v. ITO, Ward-2(4) Ahmedabad