TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng on the acquisition of agricultural land is exempt from the capital gain tax both U/s. 10(37) of the Income Tax Act'1961 and the section 54B of the which and have been ignored by the Learned Assessing Officer in the re-assessment proceedings whereas the said position was accepted in the course of original assessment proceedings. 3. That the appellant had not filed any new evidence before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax and reliance had have been placed on the evidence already placed on record on original assessment proceedings. 4. That the reply filed by the Learned Assessing Officer in the remand report based on the admission of new evidence is wholly unsustainable. The learned Assessing officer has in no way disputed the submissions made in writing and sent to him for continents 5. That the appellant had filed conclusive evidence to show that the land in question was agricultural land, the same having been acquired by the Government as a agricultural land and the entire proceeds from the said lands had been invested in the purchase of another agricultural land. 6. That there were no capital gains chargeable to tax. 7. That in any case the Learned Assessing Auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome Tax Act'1961 by the Learned Assessing Authority. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in completely ignoring the evidence on record and the statement on solemn affirmation made by Shri Vinod Kumar which is on record. 5. That the order as made is against law and facts of the case." (B) At the time of hearing, Revenue was represented by Shri Surender Pal, the learned Departmental Representative, ("Ld. DR", for short). However, neither the assessee appeared in person nor was the assessee represented by any Authorized Representative ("AR" for short). In the absence of representation from the assessee's side, at the time of hearing before us, we have heard the Ld. DR. It was noticed that separate defect notices were sent to the assessee by the Registry, intimating that the appeals were time barred by 10 days. The Ld. DR opposed the appeals filed by the assessee on grounds of limitation and also on merit. It was his view that the appeals of the assessee should be dismissed as time barred, in view of the fact that these appeals are filed beyond the prescribed time limit U/s 253(3) of the I.T. Act. On merits, the Ld. DR relied on the orders ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble in his hands. I have carefully considered the rival contention and have also gone through the material available on record. It is a well established legal proposition that the primary onus lies on the assessee to establish that the income shown by him is not taxable or exempt under the provisions of the Act. In this case I find that the assessee was given more time sufficient time and opportunity to establish that the income earned from sale of his land was not taxable but he has failed to produce necessary details arid supporting evidence to show that the land was agricultural land and that on the sale of the said agricultural land he earned income which was not taxable. However, despite having been given sufficient opportunities, the assessee has not furnished before the AO all necessary evidence so as to establish that the land in question was agricultural land only as per provisions of sec.2(14)(iii)(b) of the I.T. Act. In this regard, the appellant has also failed to furnish crucial information, i.e. distance of 8 kms etc. It is also noticed that the appellant has not shown any agricultural income in his return of income for the purpose of determining tax rates in the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laimed that the amount was repaid to Sh. Vinod Verma out of gift he received from his father which is not supported by the relevant evidence. Taking all the above into consideration, I hereby hold the repayment of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash has been done in violation of scc.259T of the Act arid, therefore, the penal provisions of sec.269T are attracted in this case. As such, penalty levied by the AO u/s 271E of the I.T. Act amounting Rs. 5,00,000/- is upheld." (C) As already mentioned in foregoing paragraph (B) of this order, we heard the Ld. DR, in the absence of any representation from the assessee's side. We have also carefully perused and considered the materials on record. (C.1) As far as bar of limitation is concerned, we find from the perusal of records that the delay in filing of the appeals was explained in writing (in identically worded three separate letters) as under: "i. That the date of communication of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has been wrongly mentioned as 23.08.2016 in the form of Appeal as filed. The order under Section 143(3), 271(E) and 271(D) were received together by the Appellant on 23.09.2016 and not on the dates mentioned in th....