9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence the addition is deleted and the ground is allowed. Computation of profit of sale of land - Held that:- Merely because the assessee offered income of the purchase and sale of agricultural land, the income cannot be taxed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Allow the additional grounds filed by the assessee. - I.T.A No. 2121/Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 27-6-2018 - Hon ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM For the Appellant : Shri Miraj D Shah, AR For the Revenue : Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. CIT ORDER This appeal by the Assessee directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [ in short the ld CITA] dated 18.07.2017 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted, as they are legal grounds and as all the facts are on record by following the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 and in the case of NTPC vs. CIT 222 ITR 383. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of iron and steel under the name of M/s J.P. Udyog. He also earned income on sale of agricultural land. A survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 17.02.2008. The assessing officer records that the assessee has suppressed income earned on cutting charges. He estimated the income from cutting charges of ₹ 7,20,000/- further the AO disallowed development cost of land claimed by the assessee of ₹ 10,81,218/-. Aggr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e labour contractors and simply assumed that payments must have been received whereas nothing was found in the impounded material. It was further argued alternatively by the appellant that the AO has taken highest value for cutting charges whereas the mean (average) rate should have been applied. Perusal of assessment order shows that the cutting charges varies from 100 to 300 for estimation of cutting charges and the applied ₹ 300/-. In this case, it is also seen that the appellant could not submit confirmation and break-up of the details of coil which were without cutting in order to prove that cutting charges were not received by him, though he contended during the course of appellate proceedings that he will file so. In absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of purchase on 25.04.2007. It is clearly evident from the sale deed that the land was agricultural. iii) From para 1 2 as above, it is clearly understood that there has been no development/change in the land. At the time of purchase the land was agricultural and also at the time of sale the land was agricultural land. It is worthy to note that if somebody incurs an expenditure around ₹ 10.81 lakh on a land costing Rs. around 12.47 lakh on account of development, there must be the change in the natures of the land. In the instant case, no change in nature of land is seen. (Emphasis ours) These findings of the fact are not disturbed by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence it is not in dispute that what is purchased and sold is agricultural land. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application that whenever an assessment has been completed by accepting the offer of an assessee, no penalty can be imposed. It has not been so observed by the Apex ITA No.6076/Del/2012 AY 2009-10 Sh. Haripal Singh Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ljtd. Vs. CIT (1987) reported in 168 ITR 705, as the Tribunal held. Its conclusion has been arrived at by a clear misappreciation of the ratio laid down in the said case. (b) In the case of Mayank Poddar (HUF) vs. WTO reported in 262 ITR 633 the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held as under. Even if the assessee had included the same in his return, that would not preclude the assessee from claiming the benefit of law. There cannot be any estoppel against the statute. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lasubramaniam, CIT and others reported in 269 ITR p.185, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under. The problem arose because the petitioner in her return for the assessment year 1988- 89 filed on June 30, 1988, offered the prize money of the lottery to tax rather a fundamental error of law on the part of the assessee, but that error of law once detected by the petitioner, it was urged before the Commissioner of Income Tax that the prize money earned by the Petitioner could not be taxed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is true that it was at a later stage that such contention was raised by the Petitioner, but the said contention was a pure question of law and the CIT ought to have entertained it on the ground of delay. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
