9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in law and in facts, in confirming the penalty u/s 2 71(1) (C) of the Act Rs. 4,77,240/- imposed by the Ld Assessing officer though the case of the appellant is not covered by the Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(C) of the Act and the appellant was under bona fide belief that Capital Gain earned on sale of agricultural land was not chargeable to tax as it was not Capital Assets as per section 2(14)(iii) of the Act supported by authentic evidence and case laws produced before the Income Tax Authority. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an agriculturist having agricultural land and his income is from agriculture and bank interest only. The assessee failed to file its return during the relevant period. Thereafter, Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pe of "capital asset" the land has to fulfil the condition as discussed in section 2(14)(iii). 7. In the present case, assessee has produced a certificate issued by the Urban Development Department as well as certificate from Gram Sabha and a letter from Revenue Department wherein status of land has been shown as agricultural land. 8. In the matter of ITO Vs. H.A. Sodhan 04 CCH 0393 Ahd-Tribunal, wherein it is held that appellant could reasonably entertain a bona fide belief that the land in question was agricultural in character and the sale thereof did not attract capital gains. The burden cast upon the appellant by the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) can be said to have been discharged by the appellant. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the legislature. The Tribunal, as well as, the CIT(A) and the High Court have correctly reached this conclusion. -Sree Krishna Electricals vs. State of Tamil Nadu &. Anr. (2009) 23 VST 249 (SC) applied; Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (judgment dt. 23rd Oct., 2007 of the Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 1149 of 2007) affirmed. 10. In view of the above said discussion, we allow appeal of the assessee and direct A.O. to delete the penalty. 11. Now we come to ITA No. 167/Ahd/2019 for 2013-14, the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: 1) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts, in confirming the penalty u/s 271F of the Act Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the Ld Assessing officer though the appellant was under bona fide belief tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
