9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Pannu, Hon'ble Vice President And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sameer Kapoor, CA For the Department : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT(DR) ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: All these three appeals have been preferred by the assessee and challenge the three separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Hisar {CIT (A)} pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. A common issue is involved in all these three appeals, and, therefore they were heard together through the virtual hearing set-up of the Tribunal on an application by the assessee and no-objection from the Department. They are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that a Maruti-Zen car bearing registration No. HR-20N-3810 en route from Hisar to Delhi was apprehended by the police in Rohtak on 6.8.2011. It was found that one of the assessees, Shri Ghanshyam Dass Ghirayia and his brother, travelling in the vehicle were in possession of ₹ 85 lacs in cash. The police confiscated the cash of ₹ 85 lacs which was thereafter seized by the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) u/s 132A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulture Property as taxable and giving a direction to the AO to tax the sale consideration as long term capital gain." 4.0 The Ld. AR submitted that if the land sold treated as agricultural land then it will fall outside the definition of 'capital asset' as defined in section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). It was submitted that the land in question was agricultural land situated at village Talwandi, Hisar, Haryana. It was submitted that 65 acres of land was sold to a partnership firm @ 15 lacs per acre for a total sale value of ₹ 96 lacs. It was further submitted that on 6.8.2011, Shri Ghanshyam Dass Ghirayia received an amount of ₹ 85 lacs as advance payment for the total sale proceeds which was received on behalf of his wife Smt. Urmila Ghiraiya and Smt. Usha Devi (his cousin). The Ld AR submitted that this cash wholly belonged to Smt. Usha Devi and Smt. Urmila Ghiraiya, the other two assessees and Shri Ghanshyam Dass Ghiraiya had no role except for being the carrier of cash and, thus, the Ld. CIT (A) had rightly deleted the protective addition in the hands of Shri Ghanshyam Dass Ghirayia. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioning that the notification has not been filed. Apart from this, the Ld. AR also submitted that there was a certificate of the Tehsildar on record which showed that the land in question was outside 8 kms from the municipal limits. It was also submitted that the copy of Khasra and Khatauni, already on record, also showed that the land in question was agricultural land. It was submitted that, thus, the land was shown as agricultural land in the revenue records and that even if the land used was changed by the purchaser/s at a later date, the same was not done at the behest of the assessee. The Ld. AR reiterated that all these documents had been duly filed before the lower authorities and that the Ld. CIT (A) had completely overlooked these documents and had held that the land in question was not an agricultural land in spite of so many documents having been filed in support of the assessee's contention. The Ld. AR reiterated that if this ground is allowed, the other grounds would become academic in nature. 5.0 In response, the Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that there were contradictory statements by the assessees which woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected himself while adjudicating the issue by placing heavy reliance on his suspicion that since the partnership firm purchasing the said land was formed only three days before the execution of the sale deed, the same was not genuine. Also the Ld. CIT (A) seems to have confused himself by the term 'Mauza' which is just another term used for a village in the local dialect. We also not that the Ld. CIT (A) has stated that the assessee has not placed the CBDT notification on record but the fact remains that he himself has reproduced the assesssee's submissions in the impugned order wherein a reference to the notification has been made. It is also apparent from the documents on record that agricultural operations were being carried out on the said land and even if the purchasers would have changed the land-use, the land remained agricultural till the time of sale. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M.S. Srinivasa Naicker vs. ITO reported in 292 ITR 481 (Madras) has held that where the agricultural operations were carried out on land till the date of sale and the land was registered as agricultural land in revenue records, the fact that the purchaser was going to use land fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
