9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isfied, impugned land is hereby held to be Agriculture land – in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2140/Mds/2010 - - - Dated:- 16-2-2012 - Abraham P George, George Mathan, JJ. For Appellant: Shri Anirudh Rai, CIT-DR For Respondent: Shri T Banusekar, CA ORDER Per: Abraham P George: In this appeal filed by the Revenue, its grievance is that CIT(Appeals) deleted an addition of Rs. 1,11,41,597/- made by the A.O. under the head Long Term Capital Gains . As per the Revenue, assessee could not prove that the land was agricultural in nature, nor had he carried out any agricultural operations during the relevant previous year. Further, as per the Revenue, land in question was subject to Urban Land Tax and ld. CIT(Appeals) ought not have considered the letter of Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Tax) for holding that the land in question was agricultural in nature. 2. Short facts apropos are that assessee engaged in finance business, had filed return for the impugned assessment year declaring total income of Rs. 3,76,047/-. There was a search in the premises of assessee on 26.10.2005 and based on the material found at the time of search, assessee was required to furnish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the nature of seeds purchase, insecticides used and irrigation facilities used did not change character of the land. Ld. CIT(Appeals) forwarded the submissions of the assessee to the A.O. who, in his remand report, stated that the question whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. According to him, the land was not ordinarily used for agricultural purposes and assessee himself admitted that there were no records for purchase of saplings or other inputs for agricultural activities. Assessee, as per the A.O., had not paid any agricultural income-tax. As per the A.O., a wide definition could not be given to the term agricultural land in view of the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (32 ITR 466) . Again as per the A.O., the sale of the land was on square feet basis and had the land been agricultural, such a type of measurement would not have been adopted. The price at which assessee sold the land was also a clear pointer that the land was not agricultural in nature. Thus, according to the A.O., assessee could not discharge the burden of proof resting on it for showing that the land was agricult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d some casuarina plants there, these were only wild growth and there was nothing on record to show that assessee raised casuarina from any saplings. According to him, the decision of jurisdictional High Court relied on by ld. CIT(Appeals) was distinguishable since in that case, assessee had carried out agricultural operations. Here, on the other hand, agricultural operations were never carried out by the assessee. 6. Per contra, learned A.R. in support of the order of ld. CIT(Appeals), submitted that wealth tax return of the assessee for assessment year 2002-03 placed at paper-book page 12 and statement of net wealth for assessment year 2001-02 placed at paper-book page 14 clearly showed that the agricultural land at Kannathur was shown as exempt and such returns were accepted by the Department. According to him, agricultural income was returned by the assessee in its return for assessment year 2005-06 (paperbook page 15), for assessment year 2004-05 (paper-book page 19) and for assessment year 2003-04 (paper-book page 24) and such returns were accepted by the Assessing Officer. Insofar as notice for Urban Land Tax placed at paper-book page 32 was concerned, learned A.R. submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079. A notice u/s 7(2) which was ordered on 02.02.1996, has been served on 27.12.1996 to the said land owner asking to submit return in respect of the said land, in compliance with provisions of Sec. 7(1) of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978. Further, the said landowner filed his objections in this office on 31.12.1996. 2. Deputy Tehsildar of this Office made enquiry in detail and submitted his elaborate report to this office. In his report, it is stated that the said land comprised in S.No. 98/16 of Kanathur Reddykuppam Village, admeasuring to an extent of 0.26.5 Ha, was purchased by the present landowner namely Mr. Chayarchand Nahar vide a Sale Deed bearing Document No. 1586/89 dated 23.06.89 and that mutation in his name for the said land is complete as evident from Patta No.446. Also, perusal of Adangal copies for the Fasli years 1392, 1393, 1395, 1397 1400, 1404, 1405 1406 revealed the entries of cultivation of Casuarinas in this particular land. The said Deputy Tehsildar recommended that since this land is an agricultural land, further proceedings could be dropped. 3. On 31.1.1997, the undersigned inspected the subject land and foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
