9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income Tax, Circle -30 (1), New Delhi u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On behalf of the assessee the Cross-Objections have been filed. 2. The facts in brief are that during the assessment proceedings it was found that the assessee had received sale consideration of Rs. 2,60,40,000/- on sale of agricultural land in Dehradun. The assessee had claimed this amount as exempt as it was sale of agricultural land. During the assessment proceedings, a detailed investigation was conducted and the it was held by Ld. AO the income derived from sale of such assets was liable to taxation and not exempt. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the mean ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and assessed income. The burden is then on the assessee to show otherwise, by cogent and reliable evidence which was not discharged by the assessee. 5. The appellant craves, leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." 4.1 Assessee in Cross objections has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1 That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT Appeal has rightly quashing/deleting the entire penalty of Rs. 59,60,593/- on the ground that the present case is not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and further the assessee has disclosed all the material facts in the return of income. 2 Ld. CIT Appeal ought to have deleted the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported by the assessee (page no. 2 of the paper book). The copy of sale deed on record shows that the assessee had executed three sale deeds which are on record at page no. 16 to 50 of the paper book and these three sale deeds whereof the sale consideration Rs. 71,82,000/-, 56,70,000/- and 1,31,88,000/- respectively and in all these as recital no. 7 it is mentioned that plot sold is situated more than 0.8 Km away from Municipal Limits. 6.1 The Assessment order establishes that the Ld. AO has taken into consideration recital while observing on page no. 2 para no. 3 of his order that "sale deed submitted by the assessee stated that all the three lands were situated more than 8 Kms away from the Municipal Limits." Thereafter based upon the on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the local revenue and Municipal Authorities and technical expertise and apparatus to come to a decisive conclusion that three plots sold by assessee were within six kilometers from western limits of Municipal Corporation Dehradun. No reason was mentioned by the ld. AO to discredit the submission of assessee that on advise of Patwari they had taken the Municipal Limit from Ghantaghar (Clocked hour). 8. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT(A) vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. , 327 ITR 51 has held that : "It is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of the income of the assessee, but it cannot be disputed that the claim made by the assessee needs to be bona fine. If the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
