9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or any law passed by the parliament as was done by it from time to time on 06-02-1973, 06-01-1994 and by Finance Act, 2013 mentioned in clause iii (b) of subsection 14 of section 2. c) The appellant specifically sought time to inspect the assessment records and to obtain relevant documents collected by him during the inquiry as it was not clear from the remand report that specific enquiry was completed. d) The appellant also applied to the municipal council seeking clarification by filing letter dated 23-07-2014 itself and duly informed the CIT (A) about the same and to receive copy thereof which she refused to accept and was sent by registered post. e) She did not accept the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT vs Satinder Pal Singh 188 Taxmann 54 having jurisdiction on the agriculture land situated in Haryana itself and applied the provision brought by the legislature by Finance Act, 2013 which was applicable only w.e.f. 01-04-2014. f) She has totally ignored the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur bench which was not only cited but was part of the paper book specifically analyzing the provisions of section 2 (14) and notifications is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... map of Sonepat- Kundli Multifunctional Urban Complex. The A.O. also noted that the village Kishora falls within notified area vide notification dated 09.10.1986 of Haryana Government being 5 kms. of limit. The assessee questioned the very basis of calculation of the above distance and contended that by approach road the distance is approx. 12 kms whereas the distance calculated by the District Town Planner appears to be on the basis of straight line distance on horizontal plane as per crow's flight, which was not permissible during the year. It was also contended that notification of Government of Haryana is not applicable for the purpose and the relevant is the notification no. 509447, dt. 06.01.1994 of the Central Government specifying the notified area from the municipal limit for the purpose. The learned CIT(A) has also upheld this action of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on this issue. 3.2 The issue as to whether the assessee is liable to pay tax on the capital gain earned raised in the ground no. 1, will depend upon the distance between the land situated at village Kishora and municipal limit of the area. 3.3 At the outset of hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly on 30.07.2014, which was informed to the learned CIT(A). Two applications under RTI were also filed before Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sonepat. The learned CIT(A) was again apprised about the letter dated 23.07.2014 addressed to Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sonepat and Municipal Engineer, Municipal Council, Sonepat under R.T.I. duly received. These copies of letters dated 23.07.2014 were also sent through letter dated 24.07.2014 by Registered Post on 25.07.2014 to the learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) has, however, passed the order on 23.07.2014 i.e. before the receipt of the copies of the letter dated 23.07.2014 sent to him through Registered Post on 25.07.2014. The learned AR submitted that the reply received under R.T.I. subsequent to the letter dated 23.07.2014 enclosed as additional evidence is very material to decide the issue and the same may be considered after admitting them as additional evidence. 3.6 Learned DR objected the application with this submission that the assessee was having sufficient opportunity before the authorities below to furnish such type of information so that the same should have been verified by the authorities below before cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010-11. Undisputedly, the amendment brought by Finance Act, 2013 to the effect that the distance from municipal limit shall be aerial distance was not available during A.Y. 2010-11, nor has it any retrospective operation as per the amendment. The A.O. has followed the amended provision and referred to Haryana Government Notification dated 09.10.1986 as per which 'Urban Area' is an area of land within the limits of Municipal Area or Faridabad complex or situate within 5 kms. of limits. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee had filed Google map (showing the distance at 11.1 kms.), affidavit from farmer who was cultivating the land on Batai and letter to J.E., District Town and Country Planning and his reply dated 30.12.2013 as additional evidence in support of its claim by the assessee that the land in question does not fall within 8 kilometers from the outer municipal limit. The decisions cited in support are Smt. (Dr.) Subha Tripathi Vs. DCIT, 34 Taxmann.com 286 (Jaipur); ITO Vs. Sh. Sukhlal, ITA No. 2420/D/2006 and CIT Vs. Satinder Pal Singh, 188 Taxmann.com 54 (P&H). The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Satinder Pal Singh (supra) has been pleased to hold tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cil Engineer, Municipal Council, Sonepat, addressed to the Income Tax Officer, New Delhi, stating therein that there is no any village Kishora within 8 kilometers from the limit of Municipal Council, Sonepat. This letter has been issued by the Council Engineer in response to the informations sought under Section 133(6) of the Act by the I.T.O. It appears that SPIO-cum-District Town and Country Planner, Sonepat, had forwarded the application of the assessee seeking the requisite information to the E.O., Municipal Committee, Sonepat. In these entire correspondences, we thus find that the letter dated 26.08.2014 issued by Tehsildar, Sonepat, to the assessee and letter dated 19.02.2013 issued by the Council Engineer, Municipal Council, Sonepat, addressed to the Assessing Officer in response to his seeking of information sought under Section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, for the assessment year under consideration are the relevant documents on the issue of distance of the land in question from the municipal limit of Sonepat. We find that the A.O. has relied upon the information dated 14.03.2013 of the District Town Planner, Sonepat and the learned CIT(A) has also referred their letter dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... countancy charges claimed are only small amount, if divided in twelve months. Likewise, rent and vehicle expenses are also very minor, if divided by twelve. The interest charges are paid while interest income in various years is less than or more than the interest paid as per business necessities as may be seen in the A.Y.s 2006-07 to 2008-09 while in A.Y. 2009-10, there was no interest expenditure claimed by the assessee company. In the year under consideration, again interest income has been declared and various expenditures under the different heads were claimed. The learned AR accordingly submitted that the business results which were regularly been accepted as declared and business expenditure was allowed to the assessee company, the Assessing Officer cannot take different stand without bringing any contrary material. He submitted that the assessee has claimed business expenditure against the income earned and not such expenditure was found fake or not relating to the business activities. He further submitted that during the year, no such expenditure was found which was either capital or personal in nature. There is nothing personal in nature once expenditure relates to the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot make any inquiry about the cultivation and only on presumption disallowed the claim. The learned CIT(A) has also ignored the affidavit filed by the cultivator as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the ITAT Rules which was provided to the Assessing Officer but on the remand report submitted from time to time, he has raised doubts on the documents of sale of agricultural produce. The Assessing Officer also raised certain doubts on production of paddy which was sold in the month of March, 2010 while the same is harvested in the beginning of November. The authorities below have also ignored the submissions of the assessee that the land was given on Batai and the assessee company is not interested on various aspects but interested on the outcome received. The AR further submitted that such declaration of agricultural income was also made in earlier years and drew our attention to page nos. 80 to 99 of the paper book, wherein a chart has been made available along with the balance-sheet, showing the agricultural income declared was included in the gross receipts while declaring the business income. He submitted that the expenditure incurred was claimed from the declared receipts in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars under the receipts interest income was declared while under the expenditure, major expenditure relates to payment of interest and bank charges. He submitted that in the assessment year 2006-07, the interest expenses were much more than the interest income shown in the assessment year 2008-09. In the assessment year 2007-08, major expenditure was in relation to interest charges. This practice was regularly declared in the Income Tax Returns and was accepted without any dispute. Learned AR submitted that the A.O. has not given any reason for deviating from the past practice and assessed the interest income under the head "income from other sources". The learned CIT(A) has also upheld the same without going through the assessment records and the documents filed in the paper book showing book results and past practice followed from year to year. He also referred page no. 22 of the paper book i.e. copy of letter dated 08.12.2012 filed before the Assessing Officer, to which the Assessing Officer had not raised any objection. Learned AR submitted that even otherwise interest income has to be assessed after deducting interest expenditure and if receipts are included under the head "bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
