Ajaybhai I Gogia v. ITO (2022) 195 ITD 301 (Rajkot)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Mortgaged property-Auctioned by bank-Capital gains not shown-Guarantor-Difference view-Levy of penalty is not valid-Appeal admitted-Penalty cannot be deleted automatically. [S. 2(47) 45, 48, 260A]

Held that when the assessee stood guarantor for a bank loan and his mortgaged property was taken over and sold in auction by the bank, since there were conflicting judicial precedents on the issue under consideration as to whether the transfer of mortgaged asset would amount to transfer of an asset or not where no consideration flew to the assessee, assessee’s view that no capital gains accrued in his hands would be a plausible one and no penalty could be levied for non-disclosure of capital gains. Merely because appeal is admitted by High Court, penalty cannot be deleted automatically.   (AY. 2011-12)