KANUBHAI ISHWARBHAI RABARI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

The assessee was identified as non-filer in the NMS [Non-Filer Management System]. There was AIR information in respect of the assessee on the ITD system for the year under consideration and the assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2011-12. The AIR information on the ITD systems in respect of the assessee was that assessee had purchased immovable property of Rs. 84,13,000/- during the year under consideration.

Being aggrieved by the penalty order u/s 271F of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notice of hearing was issued on 21.09.2022 which was duly served on the assessee. The acknowledgement receipt dated 30.09.2022, is there on record. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions of the assessee reproduced by the CIT(A) in the order dated 30.05.2022. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to file the return despite the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thus, the penalty imposed u/s Kanubhai Ishwarbhai Rabari vs. ITO AY 2011-12

Heard Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that he is agricultural land holder and derives no other income other than agriculture income. Besides this the assessee submitted that the consideration for purchase of land of Rs. 84,13,000 is paid out of savings of the assessee’s family from agricultural activities carried on since years and out of loan from assessee’s relatives and friends who are agriculturists. The assessee submitted that the assessee was not aware of the provisions of the Act and he was under bonafide impression that he is deriving income only from agricultural activities and therefore is not liable to pay income tax. No. 1594/PUN/2017 order dated 10.08.2020) wherein the assessee therein was agriculturist and facing financial problems who sold agricultural land, the CIT(A) observed that the said case laws are not identical. But in the present case the assessee has established that he was under bonafide belief that being agriculturist, he does not have to file return of income. Besides this the assessee has also explained that the funding of purchase of land despite non filing of the return of income to the Assessing Officer. This is not a fit case for mandatory filing of return of income as the assessee is agriculturist. This fact was not denied by the Assessing Officer as well. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271F does not survive. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. AY 2011-12

In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 21st October, 2022 at Ahmedabad. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER

""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु"त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त ( अपील ) / The CIT(A)-4, Ahmedabad

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध , आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file.