9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim and paid taxes, the precise location of land and its distance from the municipal limit is still unknown. During the penalty proceedings also nothing was brought on record by the AO to prove that the claim of the assessee was false and distance of the land was actually less than 8 kms from the municipal limits. This facts still remains under shadow of doubts. During the penalty proceedings also, nothing was brought on record by the AO to prove that the claim of the assessee was false and distance of the land was actually less than 8 kms. The addition has been made solely relying upon the revised computation sheet filed by the assessee. In the given circumstances, we find that it cannot be said that the claim was not bonafide at all.The only reason for disallowing the claim was the possibility of its location within the 8 kms radius of the municipality. The exact answer to this question is not available on record. Under these circumstances, the addition itself remains under the shadow of doubts. Under these circumstances, we do not find it to be a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, and thus not fit for levy of penalty. - Decided i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee immediately withdrew the claim and furnished revised computation and declared the long term capital gain of ₹ 7,53,667 as taxable and paid the tax due thereon. The Assessing Officer accepted the revised return and filed no appeal against the assessment order. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings, wherein the assessee furnished following explanation: The agreement for purchase of land specifically mentioned the land in question being the agriculture land. The land record extract also states the land in question being the agriculture land. On the advice of his then chartered accountant, the assessee was of the belief that the sale of agriculture land is not taxable to long term capital Gains. It is undisputed fact that the assessee had acted under professional advice of a chartered accountant, who filed his return of income, wherein, as per the advice then received, the land at GOA being agriculture in nature, did not attract the provisions of Income Tax Act, so as to make the gain arising on the sale thereof as taxable. In this context, reliance is placed on the following decision, wherein, addition attributable to the mistake of the Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Sattari, North Goa. The agricultural land was purchased from Anand Gopal Mhaskar and Mrs. Shubhada Mhaskar in April 2004. The purchase consideration for such agricultural land was ₹ 3,20,000/-. The entire consideration was paid by the Appellant. In November 2007, this land was sold to Smt Ratnabai A Mandrekar for a sum of ₹ 11,21,000/-. The capital gain arising on such sale of agricultural land was treated as exempt since the capital gains were arising from the sale of agricultural land. The appellants claim for treating the capital gains as exempt was based on the Land Records which clearly stated that the impugned land is an agricultural land and also on the advice provided to the Appellant by the then tax consultant. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant was under a bonafide belief that since the capital gains arising on account of sale of agricultural land is exempt from tax, The AO has in his assessment order has observed that since the agricultural land was within 8 kms of the municipality limits, the capital gains arising out of sale of land is taxable. It is respectfully submitted that the claim made or view taken by the Appellant was based on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also not denied that the impugned land is described as agricultural land in the land records maintained with the local authorities. This fact is also not denied that the assessee belonged to a rural background and he is not well educated. The assessee is apparently not aware of the nitty-gritties of the income-tax proceedings. The assessee was personally present in the court room. He had apparently acted on the advice of other persons, who were indeed not competent enough to advise the assessee. These facts have nowhere been denied by the AO or Ld. CIT(A). The conduct of the assessee has been such that the moment he came to know that agricultural land may be situated within 8 kms of the municipal limits, and therefore, it may not be exempt from income-tax, he immediately revised the return of income and paid tax thereon. Although, the assessee withdrew the claim and paid taxes, the precise location of land and its distance from the municipal limit is still unknown. During the penalty proceedings also nothing was brought on record by the AO to prove that the claim of the assessee was false and distance of the land was actually less than 8 kms from the municipal limits. This facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
