9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent : Shri V. Nandakumar, JCIT ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -8, Chennai, dated 18.01.2017 for the assessment year 2011-12, confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. Shri S. Sridhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , submitted that the Assessing Officer after due verification found that the land in question is not an agricultural land. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the claim of the assessee as agricultural land in the return of income amounts to concealment of particulars of income, hence, the Assessing Officer has rightly levied the penalty. 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e land in question is not an agricultural land. 5. It is a common knowledge that in many areas, the Registration Department for the reasons best known to them, has classified the lands even though the classification in the revenue records stand as wet land or dry land. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that if the land is classified as wet land, then there should be natural source of irr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land in question is agricultural land. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that this claim of the assessee cannot be considered to be concealing any part of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as held by the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158. In view of the above, we are unable to uphold the orders of the authorities below. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
