9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 631 - AT - Income TaxGain on sale of land - nature of land sold - urban land or agricultural land - profit on sale of land earned by the assessee at Mannur near Sriperumbudur holding the same as taxable income as against claimed by the assessee as agricultural land exempt from capital gains tax - HELD THAT - From the revenue records i.e., patta, chitta and adangal papers issued by Revenue Department of TamilNadu that use of the land owned by assessee is for the purpose of agricultural operation. Assessee has also filed the financials of financial year 2008-09, 2009-10 2010-11 relevant to assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12 which indicates that assessee has offered agricultural income and disclosed in the financials and accepted by the Income-tax Department in these years. The contest of the Revenue that this agricultural income are not declared in the returns of income is totally contrary on facts that these incomes are declared in the financials, which has been produced before us and verified by us, which are not contradicted by ld. CIT-DR. It means that the assessee has declared agricultural income varying from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,80,000/- and as per revenue records, the assessee has grown crops in the land and earned some agricultural income. The assessee is able to prove that the land is kept for agricultural activity and it has actually carried out agricultural activity, as the evident shows. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly treated this land as agricultural land and held that the same is not assessable to capital gains. We affirm the findings of CIT(A) on this issue and Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Addition u/s.43B towards service tax - assessee before us submitted that the matter can go back to the file of the AO for verification, whether the assessee has paid this amount or not within the due date, as prescribed under Service Tax Act - HELD THAT - CIT-DR has not objected. We also noted that the CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance only on the absence of any evidence not produced by assessee in regard to payment of service tax within the due date. Since, the assessee is now requesting for producing evidence, we are setting aside this issue to the file of the AO, who will verify the payment of taxes within the due date and accordingly, decide the claim. This issue of assessee s cross objection is allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of diminution in the value of DFL shares and claiming the same as loss - HELD THAT - The ld.counsel stated that in the initial years the DFL performed extremely well and the assessee company received substantial dividend but subsequently due to severe competition and stringent RBI regulations particularly on public deposit and NPA norms, the business of the company did not do well and hence, there is a fall in the share market. Assessee could not produce any evidence before us that how and to what extent the shares fall to Rs.2 and what is the basis for the same. In the absence of any evidence, we also are of the view that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is to be confirmed. This issue of assessee s cross objection is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of profit on sale of land. 2. Sustaining the addition under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act towards service tax. 3. Disallowance of diminution in the value of DFL shares and claiming the same as a loss. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition Made by the AO on Account of Profit on Sale of Land: The primary issue in the appeal by the Revenue was the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the AO regarding the profit on the sale of land at Mannur near Sriperumbudur. The AO had classified this land as a capital asset under Sections 2(47) and 45 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that it was not agricultural land and thus taxable. The AO's contention was based on the lack of documentary evidence provided by the assessee to substantiate the agricultural nature of the land, including proof of agricultural operations and revenue records. The CIT(A), however, concluded that the land was indeed agricultural. The CIT(A) relied on various case laws, including the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim v. CIT, which emphasized that whether land is agricultural is a question of fact. The CIT(A) noted that the land was used for agricultural purposes, as evidenced by revenue records and certificates from the Village Administrative Officer (VAO). The land was located more than 8 km from the nearest municipal limits, and the assessee had declared agricultural income in previous years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the land was certified as agricultural by the VAO and revenue records, and the distance from the municipal limits was more than 8 km. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of agricultural activity and income, affirming the CIT(A)'s finding that the land was agricultural and not subject to capital gains tax. 2. Sustaining the Addition Under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act Towards Service Tax: The second issue in the cross-objection by the assessee concerned the CIT(A)'s partial sustenance of the addition under Section 43B of the Act towards service tax amounting to Rs. 2,33,237/-. The CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance due to the absence of evidence of payment within the due date prescribed under the Service Tax Act. The Tribunal remanded this issue back to the AO for verification, allowing the assessee to produce evidence of payment within the due date. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the payment and decide the claim accordingly. 3. Disallowance of Diminution in the Value of DFL Shares and Claiming the Same as a Loss: The third issue involved the disallowance of a provision for diminution in the value of DFL shares amounting to Rs. 96,46,739/-. The AO had disallowed this provision, considering it a notional loss without evidence of actual decline in share value. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting the lack of evidence provided by the assessee to substantiate the claim. The Tribunal agreed with the AO and CIT(A), noting that the assessee failed to provide evidence of the decline in the value of shares to Rs. 2. Consequently, the disallowance was confirmed, and the assessee's cross-objection on this ground was dismissed. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection for statistical purposes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the agricultural nature of the land and the non-taxability of the profit on its sale. The issue of service tax was remanded to the AO for verification, and the disallowance of the diminution in the value of DFL shares was confirmed.
|
