TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 686
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(AY) 2009-10 respectively. In ITA No. 742/Srt/2023, the assessee has challenged the addition in the quantum assessment, in ITA No. 743/Srt/2023, the assessee has challenged the validity of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in ITA No. 744/Srt/2023, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271F of the Act. All the appeals are interconnected, therefore, with the consent of parties all these appeals were clubbed, heard together and are being decided by this consolidated order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, the appeal in ITA No. 742/Srt/2023 for the A.Y. 2009-10 in quantum assessment is treated as a "lead case". In this appeal, the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons that the income of assessee has escaped assessment to the extent of capital gain earned by assessee. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act by making addition of long term capital gain of Rs. 28,33,440/-. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as well as 271F of the Act which are consequential. On appeal before ld CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer in all three matters was upheld. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment was filed after 170 days of period of limitation. The delay was not condoned by the ld. CIT(A) and appeal was dismissed. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the action of Assessing Officer o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the ld. CIT(A), though, it was filed after 170 days of period of limitation. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that due to bonafide reason and advice of consultant, the assessee has neither participated in the assessment proceedings nor filed any appeal in time. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there was a sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay. 4. The assessee has good case on merit as the land acquired by the State Government was rural agricultural land, though, it was transferred under settlement with the intervention of local administration and the settlement arrived. However, the fact remains the same that the land of assessee was rural agricultural land. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that due to af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e revenue submits that the ld. CIT(A) has passed a very detailed and reasoned order. The assessee has not explained the delay in a proper manner before ld CIT(A). There is no corroborative evidence to substantiate the fact that the assessee was given wrong advice by his consultant. The assessee has made a self-serving statement for seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue prayed for dismissal of appeal on the grounds of delay itself. On merit, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that he supports the orders of lower authorities, which may be confirmed. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. I f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed not to make compliance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Though, such advice was not correct. Later on Shri Rajesh Upadhayay, Tax Consultant advised her to file appeal against the assessment order. I find that all such facts were categorically pleaded in Column 16 of Form No. 35 (appeal form). 8. I find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs DCIT (2017) 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bom) while considering the similar contention of wrong advice by consultant on condonation of delay in filing appeal, held that wrong advice by Chartered Accountant not to file appeal, the Tribunal was not justified in refusing the condonation of delay in filing appeal. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that in a similar case of Hazira land as well as land in Village Mora, wherein the land was compulsorily acquired by State Government under settlement, the Division Bench of Surat Tribunal has held that the land situated in Hazira notified area is not situated within Municipal limit and / or Hazira Notified area is not deemed municipality and held that such land was rural agricultural land and compensation/consideration received thereon is not taxable being exempt under Section 10(37) of the Act. Respectfully following the same ratio, I am of the view that the capital gain earned on sale of land/acquisition is not taxable under capital gain. In the result, the ground No1 of appeal of assessee in quantum assessment is allowed. Considering th....