The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed additional evidence to claim that the land was agricultural land and beyond eight kms. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the penalty levied on the issue of sale of land was set aside and the issue remanded to the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh after giving opportunity to the assessee. Order of penalty was set aside. (AY. 2015-16)
Kishor Madhav Paranjape v Dy. CIT (2022) 97 ITR 45 (SN.) (Pune)(Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Additional evidence-Capital asset-Failure to declare capital gain-Land outside 8 Km-Penalty order set aside-Mater remanded. [S.2(14)(iii)), 275 (1) (C).]