9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(a) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the decision of the Ld. A.O. to treat the Agriculture Land as Non Agriculture and thereby denying the exemption to the appellant as claimed by her and hence Your Appellant most humbly Prays that the impugned decision of Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. A.O. be quashed and they be directed to accept the Capital Gain on sale of agriculture land as offered by the appellant. 2. Such other relief(s) to which the appellant may be lawfully entitled to." 2. Brief facts of the case as extracted from the orders of lower authorities are that during the assessment, the AO noted that the assessee sold her 1/3rd share in piece of agricultural land situated within the limits of Village Kansad. The assessee ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f land. The product may be grain, vegetable, fruit, plantation and groves, grass or pasture for consumption of article of luxury such as betel, coffee, tea supplies, spices, tobacco or commercial corps like cotton, flax, jute, hemp, indigo etc. The assessee also stated that even if the assessee is unable to cultivate agricultural land due to vagaries of nature and non-availability of resources, she cannot be denied exemption. The reply of the assessee was not accepted by the AO. The AO took his view that the assessee has not carried out any agricultural activities in the last three years and the Grass is naturally grown in the land and that the assessee has not earned any agricultural income from such activities. Accordingly the AO denied e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the expenses incurred in removing and maintaining agricultural land and growth of Grass. The AO presumed that the land was not used for agricultural purpose without appreciating the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. The assessee furnished sufficient documentary evidence issued by Public Authority which unambiguously prove that impugned land was in fact agricultural land. The veracity of documentary evidence cannot be brushed aside by mere presumptions as presumed by AO. The fact that assessee sold agricultural land is clearly mentioned in the sale deed executed by the assessee along with other co-owner, copy of sale deed dated 08.11.2012 is also placed on record. Further this fact is strengthening by the evidence that while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is not affected by floods. We find that in the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee the nature of land is clearly mentioned as agriculture use. The AO has not made any investigation on the assertion of assessee. The AO presumed that growing of grass is not agriculture activities. We noted that the AO arrived on conclusion on the basis of his presumption that Grass is not agriculture product. The AO has not brought any adverse evidence to counter the evidence furnished by the assessee. The best evidence available before the AO was Form- 7 & 8 extract, wherein the nature of land is mentioned as agriculture land. Mere fact that the assessee has not shown agriculture income from the piece of land would not change its character. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
