2014 (7) TMI 552 - AT - Income Tax

Capital gain on sale of agricultural land - Determination of nature of the land sold Held that - As Decided in assessee s own case for the earlier assessment year, it has been held that there is nothing on records to show that old agricultural land or agricultural operation was being carried on the same land - the land in which there were several claimants, it is unimaginable that one of the claimants can carry on the agricultural operation to the detriment of others interest and others would be silent spectators - there was search and seizure operations in the group and consequently proceedings u/s 153A were initiated - AO neither accepted the agricultural income nor gave credit to the source shown for various deposits in the bank accounts, the issue in other group has been restored to CIT(A) as a whole for deciding the appeals denovo - the claim of agricultural income in earlier years and also source of income which was brought to tax as unexplained cash credits - the additional grounds raised are not adjudicated by the CIT(A) thus, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeals regarding capital gains on the sale of land, taxability of amounts from the sale of agricultural lands, determination of the nature of land sold, additional grounds raised before the Ld. CIT(A) not being adjudicated, restoration of appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Analysis:

1. Capital Gains Issue:
The group of appeals involved a common issue of capital gains on the sale of land by the assessees. The ITAT had set aside the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) because additional grounds raised by the assessees were not adjudicated. The appeals for A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Ys. 2003-04 and 2004-05 had similar issues related to capital gains. The assessees contended that what they sold was agricultural land, and the taxability of the amounts from the sale and the nature of the land were in question.

2. Adjudication of Additional Grounds:
The Ld. Counsel highlighted that the additional grounds raised by the assessees were crucial and had not been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) earlier. The correspondence, affidavits, and reports submitted by the assessees were brought to the attention of the tribunal to support the argument that all appeals needed to be set aside for fresh adjudication.

3. Judicial Decisions:
The Coordinate Bench had previously considered similar issues in other cases and decided to set aside the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) had not adjudicated upon all additional grounds raised by the assessees, necessitating a fresh review of the issues. Both assessees' and Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with directions to the Ld. CIT(A) to pass de novo appellate orders after considering all relevant aspects.

4. Restoration of Appeals:
Due to search and seizure operations leading to proceedings under section 153A, the issue of determining the nature of the land sold had implications on the claim of agricultural income in earlier years and the source of income. As the additional grounds raised were not addressed by the Ld. CIT(A), all appeals were set aside and restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing for the consideration of any additional evidence presented.

In conclusion, the judgment dealt with various issues related to capital gains, taxability of amounts from the sale of land, and the adjudication of additional grounds raised by the assessees. The decision to set aside the appeals for fresh adjudication by the Ld. CIT(A) was based on the need for a comprehensive review of all relevant aspects and additional evidence.