S. 271(1)(c) — Mere change of head of income by AO cannot be construed as concealment of income — Valuation made by DVO cannot be construed as basis for levying penalty — Valuation done by DVO can be adopted by AO only when there is material on record tha

35 DCIT v. JMD Advisors (P) Ltd.
(2010) 124 ITD 223 (Delhi)
A.Y. : 2003-04. Dated : 8-2-2008

The assessee-company was engaged in the business of real
estate. It purchased a property and carried on construction work on the same.
The constructed building alongwith the land was then sold at a loss. This loss
was claimed as business loss by the company. The Assessing Officer observed that
the said property was shown in the balance sheet as ‘fixed assets’ and not as
stock in trade. He thus held that the loss incurred was a long-term capital loss
and not business loss. He further referred the matter to the DVO to estimate the
sale consideration and the cost of construction of the property. Based on the
valuation figures given by the DVO, the AO worked out figure of long-term
capital loss.

He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the
Act.

(a) The Assessing Officer ignored the fact that the
assessee-company was incorporated with the main object of carrying on real
estate business. Further, the assessee had shown the property as ‘work in
progress’ in the balance sheets of prior years. Hence the action of the AO to
treat the property as capital asset was not well founded.

(b) Even though the action of the AO was not challenged in
the quantum proceedings as the income assessed was finally a loss, this cannot
draw any adverse inference in the penalty proceedings. Also, a mere change in
the head of income cannot be construed as concealment of income.

(c) Further, for reference to the DVO for valuation of the
fair market value, the AO first needs to bring the material on record to prove
that the assessee has received more consideration than that declared by him.
Since there was no material on record, the action of AO was not tenable in law
and addition made on this basis cannot be treated as concealed income of the
assessee to attract penalty.

(d) The AO had further substituted the cost of construction
recorded in the books of the assessee with the valuation of DVO. However, no
material was brought on record by the AO that the cost of construction was an
inflated one in the books of account of the assessee. Hence, the addition made
by the AO by substituting the cost of construction by the valuation of DVO was
not justified, much less the imposition of penalty.