Solar Paper Mill Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1163/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7590 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATAPKARAN PA UL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 2(14)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! ' , #'$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1163/MDS/2015 # % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. SOLAR PAPER MILL LTD, 43/1, BESANT AVENUE, ADYAR, CHENNAI 600 020. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2) CHENNAI 600 034. [PAN AABCS 0380F] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) '( ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. PRATAPKARAN PAUL, C.A. +,'( ) * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.B. KOLI, IRS, JCIT. ! ) - / DATE OF HEARING : 07-01-2016 ./& ) - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-03-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-15, CHE NNAI IN ITA NO.203/CIT(A)-15/13-14, DT 16.03.2015 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006- 2007 PASSED U/S.271(1)(C) AND 250 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). ITA NO.1163/MDS/2015. :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE VI(3) IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY AND AG AINST THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMP ANY CIRCLE VI(3) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY INCOME IN ORDER TO ATTRACT PENALTY IN TERMS OF SECTIO N 271 (1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX, 1961. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMP ANY CIRCLE VI(3) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LAND CHA NGED ITS CHARACTER FROM AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN DUE TO SPECIFI C CONVERSION BY THE BUYER AFTER COMPLETION OF LEGAL FORMALITIES. THE RE- CHARACTERIZATION IS ONLY WAS URBANIZED ONLY AFTER T HE SALE TO THE BUYER. AT THE TIME OF SALE, THE LAND WAS AN AGR ICULTURAL LAND. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMP ANY CIRCLE VI(3) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT VID E CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION NO.SO 10 (E) DATED 06.01.19 94 AS AMENDED BY NOTIFICATION NO.SO 1302 DATED 28.12.1999 THE LAND SOLD WAS SITUATED OUTSIDE THE SPECIFIED LIMITS OF THE NOTIFIED DISTANCE OF 8 KMS FROM CHENNAI LIMIT AND 5 KMS FROM CHENGALPATTU MUNICIPALITY LIMIT. THE CENTRAL G OVERNMENT NOTIFICATIO N IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMP A N Y CIRCLE VI(3) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE LAND IS A N URBAN LAND BY PLACING RELIANCE ON A REPORT OBTAINED FROM AN IN SPECTOR OF DE P ARTMENT OF TOWN PL ANNIN G AUTHORITY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION. 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMP ANY CIRCLE VI(3) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT SUBSEQU ENT CONVERSION OF LAND (AFTER SALE) WILL NOT RESULT IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER CAPITAL GAINS AT THE TIME OF SALE. 7 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE VI(3) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLAN T HAD PAID TAX EVEN THOUGH THE INCOME WAS RIGHTLY GROUPED UNDE R AGRICULTURAL INCOME. FURTHER, THE ADDITION OF INCOM E CANNOT BE ITA NO.1163/MDS/2015. :- 3 -: CONSIDERED AS CONCEALMENT FOR IMPOSING PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271 (1 ) (C). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE IS A LIM ITED COMPANY AND IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURER OF PAPE R WAS INCORPORATED ON 26.11.1982 AND FILED RETURN OF INCO ME ON 07.12.2006 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF ;47,543/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, RETU RN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT AND THE CASE WAS SE LECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE WAS ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE, LD . AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TI ME AND PRODUCED INFORMATION AND EXPLANATIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EARNED PROFIT ON SALE OF AGRICULTU RAL LAND ;1,30,92,111/- AND CLAIMED EXEMPTED. THE AGRICULTUR AL LAND LOCATED IN S NO.33, NAVALUR VILLAGE, CHENGALPET TALUK WAS LEAS ED BY ASSESSEE OUT TO SHRI. SADASIVAM FOR CULTIVATION AND CALLED F OR THE LEASE AGREEMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF AGRICULTURAL OPERAT ION ON LAND BY CULTIVATOR. BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE INQUIRY WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EXCEPT LETTER ON 12.12.2008 EX PLAINING THAT ;17,500/- WAS RECEIVED FROM CULTIVATOR FOR USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSING O FFICER BASED ON THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS CALLED AN ENQUIRY AND INSPEC TOR OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT MADE ENQUIRY WITH DEPARTMENT OF TOW N PLANNING ITA NO.1163/MDS/2015. :- 4 -: AUTHORITY TO VERIFY THE NATURE OF PROPERTY. THE RE PORT OBTAINED BYTHE DEPARTMENT IS AS UNDER:- THE ENGINEER VERIFIED THE SURVEY NUMBERS IN THE T OWN PLANNING MASTER BOOK, AND SAID THAT THE LANDS COME UNDER URBANIZATION LANDS AND ALL ACTIVITIES CAN BE MADE IN THESE LANDS EXCEPT POLLUTION RELATED ACTIVITIES. T HERE IS NO NEED OF CONVERSATION CERTIFICATE FROM AGRICULTUR AL LAND TO NON AGRICULTURAL LAND, FOR THESE ZONES . CONSIDERING THE REPORT AND NATURE OF LAND, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TREATED THE LAND AS URBANIZED LAND AND SALE PROCEED S ARE TAXABLE. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER EXPLAINED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IS SITUATED IN INDIA AND OUTSIDE THE SPECIFIED AREA AN D NOT A CAPITAL ASSET. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLEGED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF SITUATION OF LAND OUTSIDE THE SPECIFIED AREA. FURTHER BASED ON REPORT AND VERIFICATION OF TOWN PL ANNING MASTER BOOK, THE SURVEY NUMBERS OF LAND SPECIFIED IN THE SALE DEED FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF URBANISED LAND AND ANY SORT OF ACTIVITY CAN BE CARRIED ON THE LAND WITHOUT OBTAINING CONVERSION CERTIFICATE, AND ALSO NO ONUS OF PROOF WAS SUBMITTED THAT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS C ARRIED WITH SUPPORTING LEASE AGREEMENT OR LAND USER CONFIRMAT ION. ON PERUSAL OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 15.10.2005 THE LAND WAS SOLD TO M/S. HIRANANDANI REALTOSS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI FOR THE PUR POSE OF PROMOTING REAL ESTATE BUSINESS AND AS PER THE NOTIFICATION C IRCULAR NO.310(F. NO.164/15/18-IT(A1) DATED 29.07.1981, THE AREA FALL IN THE ITA NO.1163/MDS/2015. :- 5 -: MUNICIPALITY OF CHENGALPATTU AS NOTIFIED BY CENTRA L GOVERNMENT. THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO D EVELOP IN THE NAME OF M/S. S.M.L. DEVELOPERS AND PROVISIONS O F CAPITAL GAINS ARE ATTRACTED. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS, FINDINGS, NOTIFICATION AND GOVERNMENT REPORT AND TR EATED THE LAND AS NON AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME OF ;1,30,78,287/- AND PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 31.12.2008. SUB SEQUENTLY, ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND CALLED FOR THE EXPLANATIONS AND THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AND EXPLAINED THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD AS A AGRICULTURAL LAND AND AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ARE CARRIED OUT PRIOR TO SALE AND THERE IS NO WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL THE INCOME AND FILED EXPLANATIONS BY LET TER DATED 27.01.2009 SUBMITTING AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC . 273B OF THE ACT NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED U/S.271(1)(C), IF THE A SSESSEE PROVES THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE AND RELIED ON NOTIFIC ATION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION FROM TAX BUT T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE FACTS, PROVISIONS OF LAW AN D WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOUND THAT EXPLANATIONS ARE NOT SATISFACTORY AND LA CK REASONABLE CAUSE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND OPERATION WITH ANY AUTHENTIC C ONFIRMATION AND LEVIED PENALTY OF ;29,36,625/- U/SEC. 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT DATED ITA NO.1163/MDS/2015. :- 6 -: 29.06.2009. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER, THE AS SESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS). 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED THAT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCELED ANY PARTICULARS AS T HE CHARACTER OF THE LAND CHANGED DUE TO SPECIFIC CONVERSATION BY THE BU YER AFTER COMPLETION OF LEGAL FORMALITIES AND RE-CHARACTERIZ ATION IS SUBSEQUENT TO SALE AND THE LAND WAS SOLD AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN NOTIFIC ATION NO.SO 10(E) DATED 06.10.1994 AND AMENDED NOTIFICATION NO.SO130 2 DATED 28.12.1999 LAND IS SITUATED OUTSIDE THE SPECIFIED LIMITS OF THE NOTIFIED DISTANCE OF 8 KMS FROM CHENNAI AND 5 KMS FROM CHEN GALPATTU MUNICIPALITY LIMIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED O N THE REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY INSTEAD OF C ENTRAL GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT AND PAID TAXES THOUGH INCOME WAS DISCLOSED UNDER AGRICULTURAL INCOME. TH E LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BE NCH AND THE CATENA OF JUDGMENTS OF HIGH COURT AND ADDITION OF INCOME I N ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT ATTRACT LEVY OF PENALTY AS T HERE IS NO INTENTION TO CONCEAL THE INCOME. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) ITA NO.1163/MDS/2015. :- 7 -: CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE A ELABORATE OBSERV ATIONS THAT ASSESSEE CONTENTION THAT LAND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HAS ACCEPTED THE ADDITION AND PAID TAXES AND ALSO NOT CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO AR GUED THE CASE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT PROPERTY IS BEY OND 15KMS FROM CHENNAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND 25 KMS FROM MUNIC IPALITY LIMIT OF CHENGALPATTU TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT LAND IS NOT CAPI TAL ASSET AND THERE IS NO CERTIFICATE OR EVIDENCE OF THE PROPERTY FALL OUTSIDE THE DISTANCE OF 8KMS FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF CHENNAI. THE PROPE RTY WAS SOLD TO M/S. HIRANANDANI REALTORS (P) LTD FOR REAL ESTATE A CTIVITIES AND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS BY CULTIVATION AND RECEIVE D INCOME OF ;17,500/- AND OFFERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE AND THE LAND WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE BEFORE SALE TO BUILDE R. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WITH ANY DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCE OF SITUATION OF LAND OUTSIDE DISTANCE OF 5 KMS FROM CH ENGALPATTU MUNICIPALITY AND THE DECISION RELIED BY THE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M.S. SRINIVASA NAICKER VS. ITO (2007) 292 ITR 481 ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT C ASE. THERE IS NO AUTHENTIC PROOF OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RELIED ON THE DECISION OF CO-O RDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SRI SUBRAMANIAM VADIVEL IN ITA NO. 2118/MDS/2012 WERE HELD AS NON-AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY WHETHER ITA NO.1163/MDS/2015. :- 8 -: INSIDE THE MUNICIPALITY OR OUTSIDE THE MUNICIPALITY OR EVEN A REMOTE VILLAGE IS TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSET AND TAXES ARE L EVIED. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS NO AUTHENTIC PROOF OF AGRICUL TURAL LANDS AND AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ARE PROVED. AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REITER ATED THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, PENALTY PROC EEDINGS AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. COUNSEL ARGUED THA T COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE S IGNIFICANT FACTS THAT LAND CHANGED ITS AGRICULTURAL CHARACTERISTIC DUE TO SPECIFIC CONVERSION BY THE BUYER AFTER COMPLETION OF LEGAL FORMALITIES AT THE TIME OF SALE. AS PER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION, THE LAN D IS SITUATED OUTSIDE THE SPECIFIED LIMITS OF NOTIFIED DISTANCE OF 8KMS F ROM CHENNAI LIMIT AND 5KMS FROM CHENGALPATTU MUNICIPALITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION INSTEAD RELIE D ON THE REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY. THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO BUILDER BUT SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION BY THE BUILDER IS OUTSIDE PURVIEW OF TAXATION. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ACCEPTED TH E ADDITION AND PAID THE TAXES TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND AVOID PROTRACTED ITA NO.1163/MDS/2015. :- 9 -: LITIGATIONS AND ALSO NOT FILED APPEAL AGAINST ORD ER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL DREW ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BO OK CONTAINING RELEVANT PORTION OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION AT PAGE NO.18 DISCLOSING THE SURVEY NO. AND GUIDELINE VALUE. THE MAIN CLARIFICATION AS PER THE SRO, THAT VILLAGE NAVALUR IS A AGRICULTURAL PLACE AND PRODUCED COPIES OF PATTA AND CHITTA IN REGIONAL LANGUAGE AT PAGE 13 OF PAPER BOOK AND CERTIFICATE FROM VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OF FICE CERTIFYING THE POPULATION OF NAVALUR VILLAGE IS BELOW TEN THOUSAND . THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI. K. KUMARAN VS. ITO IN ITA NO.1452/MDS/2009, DATED 1.6.2011 WERE IT WAS OBSERVED AT PARA 7 AS UNDER:- . 13. NOW COMING TO THE APPREHENSION OF THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX THAT THE LAND MIGHT BE LIABLE FOR CAP ITAL GAINS TAXATION, THE ONLY GROUND RELIED ON BY HIM IS THE O RDER ISSUED BY THE TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT IN G.O. NO.287 DATED 8 -7- 2004, STATING THAT THE AREA IS URBANISABLE LAND. THE GOVERNMENT ORDER HAS ONLY STATED THAT THE LAND IS URBANISABLE; THAT IS IN NEAR FUTURE THIS AGRICULTUR AL AREA MAY BE TRANSFORMED INTO AN URBAN SETTLEMENT. BUT, TILL THE DATE OF SALE OF THE LAND BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YE AR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, NO NOTIFICATIO N WAS ISSUED, DECLARING EGATHUR AND NAVALUR VILLAGES AS U RBAN AREA. THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ISSUED ANY SUCH NOTIFICATION MAKING ITS INTENTION ABSOLUTE. THE EAR LIER NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT CLARIFY ING THE VILLAGES TO BE URBANISABLE WAS IN CONTEMPLATION OF ITS DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES AND SCHEMES. THAT HAS NOTH ING TO DO WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF INCOME-TAX LAW. THE C ENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES HAS NOT ISSUED ANY NOTIFICATI ON DECLARING EGATHUR AND NAVALUR VILLAGES AS NOTIFIED AREAS FOR ITA NO.1163/MDS/2015. :- 10 -: THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, ONLY IN THE LIGHT THAT THE VILLAGES MIGH T BE DECLARED AS URBAN AREAS IN FUTURE, IT IS NOT POSSIB LE TO HOLD THAT THE LAND SOLD WAS NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND. AND PRAYED FOR DELETION OF PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 6. CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ORDERS AND ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE ALLEGING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AND BY MAKING TAX PAYMENT S ACTION CANNOT BE TREATED AS FURNISHING OF ACCURATE DETAILS AND CO NCEALMENT OF INCOME FURTHER RELIED ON THE JUDICIAL DECISION. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD, JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED AND NOTIFICATIONS. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED THE GROUNDS AGAINST THE ADDI TION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGH ACCEPTED THE ADDITION AND ALSO PAID TAXES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY AN D BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED UNDER COMPANIES ACT AND PROVI SIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE LAND I S AGRICULTURAL LAND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED WITH PROOF, AS REITERATED BEFOR E LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ALSO FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING CENTRAL NOTIFI CATION AND GUIDELINE VALUES AND COPY OF PATTA AND CHITTA, VAO CERTIFICAT E FOR CENSUS TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT LAND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND FALL W ITHIN SPECIFIED AREA. THE ASSESSEE IS ARGUING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BUT NOT QUANTUM APPEAL WERE THE GROUNDS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADDITI ON ARE BEING ITA NO.1163/MDS/2015. :- 11 -: ARGUED. ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS AND LOWER AUTHORITIE S ORDER, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING AND THEY COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE EXCEPT RELYING ON THE NOTIFICATION AND THE DECISIONS WHICH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DISTINGUISHED IN HIS ORDER . THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND ALSO EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DE ALT. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND UPHOLD THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ' ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI 0 / DATED:24.03.2016 KV 1 ) +#-23 43&- / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 3. ! 5- () / CIT(A) 5. 3 89 +#-# / DR 2. +,'( / RESPONDENT 4. ! 5- / CIT 6. 9:% ; / GF