9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the AO to treat the same as agricultural lands. Accordingly, the grounds Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed. AO denied exemption u/s 2(ea)(i)(4) of the Act in respect of the residential flat at Banjara Hills - revenue authorities held that the property was let out for a period of two months during the previous year relevant to impugned AY, therefore, the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption u/s 2(ea)(i)(4) - As argued the said flat was purchased by the assessee during the month of September, 2006, the question of holding the property for more than 300 days does not arise and hence, the same should be considered as an exempted asset - We are of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sset though the said lands were not converted into Non-agriculture lands without going into the facts and evidences produced by the appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the legal position that no construction is permissible on the said land and hence it falls, within the exception to the definition of asset and therefore not includible as Urban land and thereby erred in treating the said lands as urban lands and charged to wealth tax. The addition is liable to be deleted. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing exemption u/s 2(ea)(i)(iv) for the flat owned by the assessee at Banjara Hills and held that the same was not held for a period of more than 300 days, whereas the said flat was purchased by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Ravada Village ₹ 8,34,030 vi) Flat No. 602, Road No. Banjara Hills ₹ 20,00,000 2.2 The AO asked the assessee to furnish evidence in respect of assets claimed as exempt. In response the AR of the assessee vide letter dated 25/03/2015 submitted as under: "We have already submitted the copies of the sale deeds of the agriculture lands shown in the computation of wealth of the assessee for A. Y.2007-08 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the lands held by the assessee are agriculture lands only. Further, we also submit that the Hon'ble ITA T, Hyderabad has also passed an order in the assessee's case stating that the lands held by the assessee at Dundigal and Bowrampet are agriculture lands only and also deleted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avada villages as urban lands chargeable to wealth tax. Also, the AO denied exemption u/s 2(ea)(i)(4) of the Act in respect of the residential flat at Banjara Hills. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CWT(A) and contended that the lands are purely agricultural in nature and they are located outside the municipal limits. 4. The CWT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and referring to the provisions of section 2(ea) of the Act, confirmed the assessment order. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CWT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT, 6. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in course of assessment proceedings it was explained that the lands held by the appellant we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1kajgiri, Medchal District stating that the assessee carried agricultural operations in the lands situated at Dundigal and Bourampet villages. lt is also pertinent to mention here that the assessee received subsidy from the Government of Telangana, which is being given to the agricultural land owners in the form of an incentive for developing the agricultural produce, the assessee received an amount of ₹ 36,250/- on 23.06.2020 and also ₹ 11,000/- on 04.09.2020, in the account of assessee account No.33765697085 of State Bank of lndia. The Bank statement of SBl wherein, the agricultural subsidy from Telangana Government is received and the certificate of the agricultural officer Medchal District which becomes additional evidence a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tural lands. Accordingly, the grounds Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed. 9. As regards ground No. 5 against denying the claim of exemption u/s 2(ea)(i)(4) in respect of the residential flat located at banjara hills, the revenue authorities held that the property was let out for a period of two months during the previous year relevant to impugned AY, therefore, the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption u/s 2(ea)(i)(4). 9.1 The contention of the assessee that he had purchased the Flat on 16/09/2006 for an amount of ₹ 15,00,000/- and incurred registration charges of ₹ 87,120/-. As the said flat was purchased by the assessee during the month of September, 2006, the question of holding the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
