TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee was not contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). This is more so when at the beginning of the enquiry the assessing officer was not clear as to whether there is a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly we set aside the order's of authorities below and delete the levy of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA no.4382/Mum./2014 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2017 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri. R.K. Sinha For The Revenue : Shri. Kailash Kanojiya ORDER PER: SHAMIM YAHYA This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT-A dated 21.05.2014 and pertain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpretation of section 2 (14) (iii) (a) of the Act wherein population of 10,000 is not to area of village where the land is situated but to the area of total jurisdiction of the relevant authority (Pardi municipality). 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal. 3. In this case it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had sold the land situated at Survey No. 1021 in Village Pardi (Gujarat). The profit arise on the same was claimed as exempt and not chargeable to tax under capital gains, on the ground that the land was an agricultural capital asset under the provisions of Sec. 2(l4)(iii)(a) of the I. T. Act. To verify the claim of the assessee, the Assessing Officer reques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansaction is liable to capital gain tax. The acquisition cost of the land was taken at ₹ 22,000/- by increasing the four times of the value given by the assessee. The long term capital gain works out by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 28,85,820/-. The penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. A show cause notice issued to the assessee on 23.04.2010 requesting him to appear before the Assessing Officer on 20.05.2010 at 12.30 p.m. The assessee's representative replied vide his letter dated 29.04.2010 that the assessee has preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the said addition and which is pending. Hence, he requested to keep the proceeding u/s. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties have made enquiry and on the basis of their enquiry it came to notice that the concerned land was situated within 8 km of the municipal limits. Hence despite being agricultural land the sale was exigible to capital gains tax. It is further noted that learned CIT-A has himself accepted that the assessing officer at the beginning was not clear as to whether it is a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7. In the background of aforesaid factual scenario in our considered opinion assessee cannot be held guilty of contumacious conduct so as to warrant levy of penalty under section 271 (1) c. This view is supported by the larger bench of honourable apex court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
