9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of agricultural land cannot be brought to tax under the head 'income from business or profession', more particularly when the nature of land was agricultural land at the time of purchase as well as at the time of sale - assessee has also filed necessary evidence to prove that impugned land was purchased for the purpose of agricultural operations and also before the date of sale, the said land was used for agricultural purposes, which is evident from the fact that assessee has declared agricultural income for the assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07. land in question was agricultural land and was used for agricultural purposes till the date of sale. Had it been the case of Assessing Officer that assessee has purchased agricultural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that Assessing officer erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act and consequently erred in completing the re-assessment u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals)-15 grossly erred by sustaining the Assessment order, and failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer went wrong by treating the sale of agricultural land as business income and thereby bringing to tax an amount of ₹ 1,93,71,600/- which is contradictory to the facts of the cases and not sustainable in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals)-15 erred in not appreciating and considering the evidences brought out by the Appellant vide his letter dt. 08.11.2018 wherein he has produced the Adang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Appellant and independent of his business activity was overlooked. 10. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2010-11. As per AIR information, assessee and another person has sold immovable property for Rs. 4.00 crores. On the basis of the said information, case was reopened under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and consequently case has been taken up for scrutiny assessment. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee has sold 16 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A), but could not succeed. The learned CIT(A) for the reasons recorded in appellate order dated 29.11.2018 by following the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. L.S. Manickam (1995) 215 ITR 519 (Madras) held that to decide whether particular income is assessable under the head income from business or is it exempt as agricultural income depends upon the nature of activity carried out and the intentions of the assessee to purchase and sale of land. Since the assessee was into real estate business, the profit derived from sale of land needs to be assessed under the head 'income from business or profession' and consequently, there is no error in the findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds clearly indicated that the lands are agricultural lands. The assessee has also produced necessary certificate from Tahsildar to prove that agricultural activities are being carried out in the said lands. The Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have ignored all evidences filed by the assessee and assessed gain derived from sale of land under the head 'income from business or profession'. 5. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly supporting the order the learned CIT(A) submitted that even though the land in question was agricultural land but the assessee has failed to file necessary evidence to prove that agricultural operations were carried out in the land to claim the benefit of tax of status of agricultural income. Even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a business person to hold land for agricultural purposes, then merely for the reason that the said person engaged in the business of buying and selling of lands, the profit derived from sale of agricultural land cannot be brought to tax under the head 'income from business or profession', more particularly when the nature of land was agricultural land at the time of purchase as well as at the time of sale. Further, the assessee has also filed necessary evidence to prove that impugned land was purchased for the purpose of agricultural operations and also before the date of sale, the said land was used for agricultural purposes, which is evident from the fact that assessee has declared agricultural income for the assessment year 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
