9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee to prove carrying out actual agricultural activity of the land in issue is agricultural. Both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee s agricultural land sold as industrial giving rise to capital gains in issue. We therefore accept assessee s former twin substantive grounds to this effect. Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- We find no reason to agree with the impugned addition. Case file indicates that the assessee had executed an MoU with M/s Spac Martix Pvt. Ltd. on 07.10.2009 agreeing for extending security in the form of assignment or hypothecation of personal assets for securing loan for the company and the latter in turn had to give mutual financial accommodation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o substantive grounds challeng correctness of both the lower authorities action treating his income from sale of alleged agricultural land amounting to ₹93,29,222/- as capital gains resulting in addition of ₹51,50,550/- after invoking sec. 50C of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) s detailed discussion qua this former issue reads as under:- Grounds-1 2, These grounds of appeal as raised by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer are as under:- That the: Learned assessing officer was not justified in adding the income of ₹ 9329222/- claimed as exempt income from sale of agricultural land without proper examination and verification of the details furnished. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land. In a recent appellate tribunal decision, Income tax tribunal Hyderbad vide order dated 30/08/2013 in ITA No.1715 between RAJENDRA PERSHAD TEJPRAKASH VS ITC WARD 9(2) HYDERABAD held that sale of agricultural and will not be taxable as capital gain under the Income tax Act. In view of the above, the additions of ₹ 9329222, being profit on sale of agricultural land, and ₹ 5150550, being capital gain under provisions of section 50C added by the assessing office be deleted, as the profit from such sale of agricultural land is Capital receipt and not taxable under any provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I have considered the submissions of the authorized representative of the appellant as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had been not been put agricultural but industrial use. We find no merit in the Revenue s instant arguments. The assessee s detailed paper book running into 216 pages and more particularly up to pages 1 to 132 reveals that the land in issue in sale had been shown as agricultural as per the relevant records as on 26.02.2019 (pages 88 to 97). Coupled with this, we find that this is not also the Revenue s case that the land itself during assessee s possession had ever been converted to industrial use. Hon'ble Bombay high court s decision in CIT vs. Debbie Alemao and 2. Joaquim Alemao (2011) 331 ITR 59 (Bom) holds that it is nowhere necessary for an assessee to prove carrying out actual agricultural activity of the land in issue is agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown under the head unsecured loan. The AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has received temporary advance of ₹ 60 Lacs from M/s space Martix Pvt Ltd to meet short term cash requirements. The assessee has admitted that amount was given to director and it was not for business purpose. It was a loan and if it was advance than the purpose has not been explained either during the assessment proceeding or appellate proceeding. In view of above, the order of the AO is upheld and this ground of appeal is dismissed. Mr. Halder s argument in support of the impugned addition is that the assessee could not prove any arrangement in support of the impugned temporary advance of ₹60,00,000/- from M/s Space Martix Pvt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
