2019 (2) TMI 521

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to consider that the appellant had agreed for the addition on the condition that no penalty proceeding shall be initiated against him. Therefore the impugned penalty amounts to breach of condition on the part of AO, and as such, liable to be annulled. 2. The Ld. CIT appeal erred in not considering the fact that the Ld. AO did not consider the written submission filed by the appellant and passed the impugned penalty order mechanically and therefore the same is contrary to law and factually incorrect. 3. The Ld. CIT appeal also failed to consider that the appellant was under bonafide belief that the transaction of land in question is exempt from taxation, since the status thereof is agricultural land in revenue r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3,50,000/- for construction of wall around the plot and Rs. 1,68,400/- for stamp duty for sale of land. In compliance, the assessee could not establish the claim of agricultural land with credible documents as the land was situated within the municipal limits, as per the provision of the section. 4. After considering the above expenses, the assesses has determined the STCG at Rs. 10,54,600/- and offered the same for taxation, vide letter dated 02.03.2013. The AO. however, determined the value of the capital gain at Rs. 16,51,680/- and assessed the income at Rs. 23,01,680/-, as against the returned income of Rs. 6,50,000/- and also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The assessee did not challenge the above order o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Also during the course oj assessment disallowance of Rs. 74,800/- being gate expenses was accepted on the condition that no penalty be initiated u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. So considering the above factor and there being no concealment, I request you to drop the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of my client for A Yr 2010-17.'' 6. Hence, the A.O. was not convinced. He levied a penalty of Rs. 5,10,369/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. 7. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee despite notice sent. The notice sent has returned unserved. Hence, we proceeded t....