New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 245 - ITAT CHENNAI

2016 (5) TMI 245 - ITAT CHENNAI - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - sale of agriculture land - Held that:- The ld. Authorised Representative argued the grounds against the addition by the Assessing Officer though accepted the addition and also paid taxes. The assessee company is a public limited company and Books of Accounts are Audited under Companies Act and provisions of Income Tax Act. The assessee’s contention that the land is agricultural land cannot be sustained with proof, as reiterated befo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y could not substantiate with documentary evidence except relying on the notification and the decisions which the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has distinguished in his order. Therefore, we find that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has examined the issue and also explanations of the assessee were dealt. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and uphold the same. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1163/Mds/2015 - Da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

after referred to as the Act ). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. The order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI(3) is erroneous, arbitrary and against the settled principles of law. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI(3) failed to appreciate that the Appellant has not concealed any income in order to attract penalty in terms of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax, 1961. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Compa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fication No.SO 1302 dated 28.12.1999 the land sold was situated outside the specified limits of the notified distance of 8 Kms from Chennai limit and 5 Kms from Chengalpattu municipality limit. The Central Government Notification is binding on the Assessing Officer 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI(3) erred in concluding that the land is an urban land by placing reliance on a report obtained from an Inspector of Department of Town Planning Authority the Central Gover .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or imposing penalty under Section 271 (1 ) (c) . 3. The Brief facts of the case the assessee is a limited company and in the business of manufacturer of paper was incorporated on 26.11.1982 and filed return of income on 07.12.2006 with total income of ;47,543/-. Subsequently, return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued. In compliance to notice, ld. Authorised Representative of assessee appeared from time to time and produced i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

08 explaining that ;17,500/- was received from cultivator for use of agricultural land during the financial year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer based on the assessees submissions called an enquiry and Inspector of the Income Tax Department made enquiry with Department of Town Planning Authority to verify the nature of property. The report obtained bythe Department is as under:- The Engineer verified the survey numbers in the town planning master Book, and said that the lands come under urbanizat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Officer alleged that assessee could not produce any documentary evidence of situation of land outside the specified area. Further based on report and verification of town planning master book, the survey numbers of land specified in the sale deed fall under the category of urbanised land and any sort of activity can be carried on the land without obtaining conversion certificate, and also no onus of proof was submitted that agricultural operations carried with supporting lease agreement or land .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

acted. The ld. Assessing Officer considered the submissions, findings, notification and Government report and treated the land as non agricultural land and assessed total income of ;1,30,78,287/- and passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2008. Subsequently, Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and called for the explanations and the ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee reiterated the submissions in assessment proceedings and explained that the land was sold as a agricultur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

found that explanations are not satisfactory and lack reasonable cause on agricultural land operation with any authentic confirmation and levied penalty of ;29,36,625/- u/sec. 271(1 )(C) of the Act dated 29.06.2009. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Authorised Representative argued that order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and assessee has not conceled any particulars as t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessing Officer relied on the report of Development of Town Planning Authority instead of Central Government notification. The assessee company has not preferred an appeal against the order u/s.143(3) of the Act and paid taxes though income was disclosed under agricultural income. The ld. Authorised Representative relied on decision of Co-ordinate Bench and the catena of judgments of High Court and addition of income in assessment proceedings will not attract levy of penalty as there is no inte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that land is not capital asset and there is no certificate or evidence of the property fall outside the distance of 8kms from Municipal limits of Chennai. The property was sold to M/s. Hiranandani Realtors (P) Ltd for real estate activities and used for agricultural operations by cultivation and received income of ;17,500/- and offered as income from other source and the land was used for agricultural purpose before sale to builder. The assessee could not substantiate its claim with any document .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

non-agricultural property whether inside the municipality or outside the municipality or even a remote village is treated as capital asset and taxes are levied. With these observations, the CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer as no authentic proof of agricultural lands and agricultural operations are proved. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee assailed an appeal before Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld. Authorised Representati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

limit and 5kms from Chengalpattu municipality. The Assessing Officer is bound to accept the Government notification instead relied on the Report of Department of Town Planning Authority. The property was sold to builder but subsequent conversation by the builder is outside purview of taxation. The assessee company has accepted the addition and paid the taxes to buy peace with the department and avoid protracted litigations and also not filed Appeal against order u/s.143(3) of the Act. The ld. C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the order of Co-ordinate bench decision in the case of Shri. K. Kumaran vs. ITO in ITA No.1452/Mds/2009, dated 1.6.2011 were it was observed at para 7 as under:-. 13. Now coming to the apprehension of the Commissioner of Income-tax that the land might be liable for capital gains taxation, the only ground relied on by him is the order issued by the Tamil Nadu Government in G.O. No.287 dated 8-7- 2004, stating that the area is urbanisable land . The Government Order has only stated that the land .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as in contemplation of its developmental activities and schemes. That has nothing to do with the administration of Income-tax law. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has not issued any notification declaring Egathur and Navalur villages as notified areas for the purpose of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, only in the light that the villages might be declared as urban areas in future, it is not possible to hold that the land sold was not agricultural land . and prayed for dele .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version