9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. In ITA No.1053/PN/2011 for A.Y. 2008-09, the revenue has taken the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the learned CIT (A)-l, Nashik erred in deleting the addition at ₹ 30,78,442/- on account of inflated cost of land as on 01.04.1981, for A.Y.2008-09 made under Sec. 143(3) of Income Tax Act,1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A)-I, Nashik erred in deleting the addition at ₹ 10,55,776/-on account of disallowance of deduction claimed under Sec.54B, for A.Y.2008-09 made under Sec.143(3) of Income Tax Act,1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A)-I, Nashik erred in deleting the addition at ₹ 10,00,000/- on account of disallowance of expenses for transfer of land, for A.Y.2008-09 made under Sec. 143(3) of Income Tax Act,1961. 4. On the facts and circumstance of the case the CIT Appeal erred in admitting fresh evidence even though provisions of rule 46 A were not satisfied in the instant case. 5. The CIT (A) erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of land as on 01.04.1981. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative has supported the order of CIT(A) on the issue. 4.3 After going through the rival submissions and material on record, we find that Assessing Officer has estimated the value of land as on 01.04.1981 at ₹ 50,000/- per hector for arriving at taxable on the basis of information collected from concerned Asst. Sub5 Registrar, Nashik vide letter dated 20.10.2010 in respect of market value of land in the year 1989. The information / value of the land in the year 1989 estimated by the Asst. Sub-Registrar / A.O. on the basis of general rates estimated for 60 places in Nashik District, such as Nashik Road, Mhasrul, Gangapur Road, Gangapur, Dindori, Makhmalabad etc. The said general rates of ₹ 80,000/- per Hector for Jirayat agricultural lands situated at various 60 places for stamp duty purposes. Thus, the valuation estimated without considering exact location of land and its market value and other relevant factors. While the valuation of the land made by the approved valuer is in respect of specific land of the assessee situated at Mhasrul shiwar on specific physical verification and location of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1929190 470147 4439922 The Assessing Officer has allowed deduction u/s.54B to the extent of ₹ 8,73,414/- at 8% of the total capital gain assessed by him in the following manner: Full value of consideration of assessee's share as shown Rs.1,33,67,500/- Less: Expenses for transfer towards stamp duty and registration fees. ₹ 3,85,000/- Rs.1,29,82,500/- Less: Inflated cost of acquisition as worked out ₹ 20,64,796/- Capital Gain Rs.1,09,17,704/- 5.1 The Assessing Officer has worked out capital gain related to area of land on which crops other than grass were grown which is 8% area of the total area of land sold. The Assessing Officer has accordingly worked out the capital gain at 8% at ₹ 8,73,414/- and restricted the deduction u/s. 54B to the said extent as against claimed by the assessee at ₹ 19,29,190/- towards cost of purchase of new agricultural land. The Assessing Officer has made t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /12 extracts of the various lands in question, the Assessing Officer noticed that out of the total land of 29.87 Hectors, land to the extent of only 2.40 Hectors was under cultivation of crops as on remaining land grass was grown as mentioned on 7/12 extracts of the said land. The issue is whether grass grown on part of land has mentioned on account of agricultural activity carried out by the assessee and whether the part of land is cultivated and part of land is not cultivated due to hilly area and for want of water, etc. reasons can be said that total agricultural land sold has been utilized for agricultural purposes during preceding two years as required for claim u/s.54B of I.T. Act. The assessee has claimed that he has grown the fodder on part of land sold due to non-availability of sufficient water, land was hilly and same was required for buffaloes maintained by both the family which is evident from the charges paid to municipal corporation for maintaining buffaloes. The other remaining fodder grass was also sold to other buffaloes owners. The claim of assessee has been that he has been carried out the agricultural activity on total land. The Assessing Officer did not accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty, classified as agricultural land in revenue records and accepted as agricultural land in the wealth tax assessments, ceased to be such agricultural land before the transfer of such lands. The expression used for agricultural purposes in section 54B could only be the description of the agricultural land which is subject of the transfer and not a condition precedent for granting the relief u/s.54B. On the facts of the present case, the assessee has infact cultivated a part of its land according to the Adangal Register (Revenue Record) and no further cultivation was possible because of lack of water. The use referred to in the section can only be regarded as such use as the lands are capable of with the aid of facilities available and the assessee cannot be denied the relief because he was actually unable to put the land to use due to vagaries of nature and non availability of resources. 5.5 In view of above, CIT(A) observed that where part of land cultivated and part is not cultivated due to hilly area and for want of water etc. Reasons could be said that the total agricultural land sold has been utilized for agricultural purposes during preceding two years as required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26/9/2006 Mahila Sahakari Bank Cheque No.3396 Sharmila Mahankale Sister 2,50,000 16/9/2006 Mahila Sahakari Bank Cheque No. 3 561 Rangubai Y. Bhore Grand mother 1,25,000 Total 10,00,000 It is true that the Hakka Sod Patra i.e. deed of relinquishment of rights in the land has been entered into by the appellant and other legal heirs on 29/8/2006 and at that time the consideration for relinquishment of rights has not been paid, however, the same has been paid as above i.e. within very short period of 14 days. It is also pertinent to note here that one of the legal heir of the Bhore family i.e. Smt. Sharmila Ravindra Mahankale to whom payment for relinquishment of rights was made by Shri Santosh Bhore and Smt. Aruna Bhore has filed return of income showing capital gain of ₹ 5,00,000/- and has also paid capital gain tax on the same. Copy of acknowledgement of return alongwith computation of income of Smt. Sharmila R. Mahankale is enclosed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lands were owned by the members of Bhore family, who have sold the lands and the said female members of Bhore family were married daughters and were staying with their husbands elsewhere at the relevant point of time. It has been the stand of assessee that as per Hindu Law the said married female members have limited rights of maintenance and it has been mentioned in the said deeds that the assessee had arranged for his above mentioned liability and has fulfilled the same and in future also shall fulfill the said liability. It was also noticed that all the said payments towards surrender of rights in the land were made by bank cheques in the month of September, 2006 i.e. within about 15 days of entering into the deeds for surrender of rights. Further at the assessment stage the assessee has filed confirmations of the payees, who have surrendered their rights for consideration with the Assessing Officer alongwith copies of deeds for surrender of rights. The assessee has also filed copy of Income Tax return filed by one of the payee Smt. Sharmila R. Mahankale, who received the payment and has declared the same in the return of income filed by her. The assessee has filed affidavits o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /PN/2011. 9. The issue No.1 is pertaining to addition of ₹ 30,78,442/- on account of inflated cost of land as on 01.04.1981 for A.Y. 2008-09. Similar issue arose in ITA No.1053/PN/2011 in the case of Shri Santosh Suresh Bhore which was decided in favour of assessee vide para 4 of this order. The assessee being co-owner and facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of CIT(A), who has deleted the addition of ₹ 30,78,442/- made on account of inflated cost of land as on 01.04.1981. We uphold the same. 10. Next issue is with regard to addition of ₹ 10,55,776/- on account of deduction claimed u/s.54B for A.Y. 2008-09 made u/s.143(3) of I.T. Act. Similar issue arose in ITA No.1053/PN/2011 in the case of Shri Santosh Suresh Bhore which was decided in favour of assessee vide para 5 of this order. The assessee being coowner and facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of CIT(A), who has deleted the addition of ₹ 10,55,776/- made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.54B of I.T. Act. We uphold the same. 11. Next issue is with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r transfer of land for A.Y. 2008-09. We uphold the same. 17. In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed. 18. In ITA No.1177/PN/2011, the revenue has raised almost the similar grounds as in ITA No.1053/PN/2011. 19. The issue No.1 is pertaining to addition of ₹ 15,39,224/- on account of inflated cost of land as on 01.04.1981 for A.Y. 2008-09. Similar issue arose in ITA No.1053/PN/2011 in the case of Shri Santosh Suresh Bhore which was decided in favour of assessee vide para 4 of this order. The assessee being co-owner and facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of CIT(A), who has deleted the addition of ₹ 15,39,224/- made on account of inflated cost of land as on 01.04.1981. We uphold the same. 20. Next issue is with regard to addition of ₹ 3,15,593/- on account of deduction claimed u/s.54B for A.Y. 2008-09 made u/s.143(3) of I.T. Act. Similar issue arose in ITA No.1053/PN/2011 in the case of Shri Santosh Suresh Bhore which was decided in favour of assessee vide para 5 of this order. The assessee being coowner and facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, we are not incline ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
