9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of land - Nature of land sold - whether land were agricultural land, and hence not liable to capital gain under section 2(14) ? - HELD THAT:- Assessee could not controvert the report of Tahsildar, wherein, he has categorically stated that no crops were grown on the pieces of land sites from the period from 2008 to 2013. Secondly, the assessee has not produced the details of crops grown on the above land during the financial years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Moreover, the assessee has not produced the details of irrigation facility on the land, details of pump sets, if any, details of electricity bills, etc., either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A) or even before the Tribunal. Moreover, in the website www.tnreginet.net, the status of the above land shows as residential . CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Addition made u/s 2(22)(e) - amount received from the company shown as share application money to the company for which, allocation is pending - assessee is one of the Directors and he is having a substantial interest in the company granting loans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot filed any other petition for condonation of delay of remaining periods, this appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. When the appeal came up for hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. 3. So far as appeal filed against quantum addition is concerned, the assessee has challenged upholding of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 belatedly on 14.10.2011 admitting total income of ₹.34,70,877/- including agricultural income of ₹.10,00,000/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, from the tax computation sheet, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has received rent from land at Kelambakkam and has offered the same as income from house property and claimed 30% deduction for repairs and maintenance. However, as per section 22 of the Act, the income from house property is only from buildings or land appurtenant thereto and not from land alone as offer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er select the return filed by the assessee for scrutiny and after scrutiny, the Assessing Officer is concluding the original assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. Admittedly, in the present case, scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was not carried out. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has validly reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. 3.5 So far as case law relied on in the written submissions of the assessee is concerned, the decision in the case of Martech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 394 ITR 733 (Mad) has no application to the facts of the present case, wherein, in that case, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act without dealing with the objections filed qua the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, whereas, in the present case, the assessee has not raised any objection against the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 3.6 Similarly, the decision in the case of M/s. Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited v. ACIT 409 ITR 369 (Mad) has no application to the facts of the present case, wherein, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ponse to the same, Mohamad Sathak Trust submitted the registered Sell Agreement of above land in Doc. No. 9396/2010. On the above land site, there stands one A.J. College of Nursing (promoted by Mohamed Sathak Trust). In the adjacent area, there is one Mohamad Sathak Green Wood City. The entire area of village, which is nearly 1.5 2 k.m. adjacent to the OMR Road, a fast expanding area of Chennai, is dry in nature and there is no agricultural activity. A lot of commercial activities and construction projects are going on in this village. Real Estate projects like Casa Grand Pavillion, Oasis Sekhar Flats, Green Wood City are either completed or going on in full fledge. In the same area of village, School of Maritime Studies, T.S. Narayanswami College of Arts Science are existing. Sri Venkateswara Dental College/Nursing College Iravi Vellan Mellan Hospital (both VELS University) are also operating in the same area. This village is also in the vicinity of 1.5 2 km from the Satyabhama University. Moreover, in the website www.tnreginet.net, the status of the above land shows as residential . 4.2 Information u/s 133(6) vide this office letter dated 20.02.2014 was also called f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... head Long Term Capital Gain. 4.6 The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following various judgements of various courts, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4.7 On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.8 We have heard the rival contentions and also perused the written submissions filed by the assessee on this issue. With regard to the claim of exemption under section 2(14) of the Act towards capital gains, first of all, in his written submissions, the assessee could not controvert the report of Tahsildar dated 28.03.2014, wherein, he has categorically stated that no crops were grown on the pieces of land sites from the period from 2008 to 2013. Secondly, the assessee has not produced the details of crops grown on the above land during the financial years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Moreover, the assessee has not produced the details of irrigation facility on the land, details of pump sets, if any, details of electricity bills, etc., either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A) or even before the Tribunal. Moreover, in the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumulated profits in the company which is ₹.25,95,533. Accordingly, ₹.25,95,533/- was added back to the total income of the assessee under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 5.1 On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5.2 We have heard the rival contentions. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has concluded that the loan received by the assessee has to be added as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Before the ld. CIT(A), the AR has contended that the assessee brought share application money to the company which he withdrew later on. However, the AR could not demonstrate in terms of accounts that the said loan transaction does not attract the conditions under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. By considering the submissions of the as well as remand report of the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 5.3 Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the submissions as made before the ld. CIT(A). We have also perused the remand report of the Assessing Officer. During the remand proceedings, the assessee was asked to substantiate with details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank account. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee as well as remand report, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in the absence of any valid explanation. 6.1 We have considered the rival contentions. Out of ₹.13,54,000/-, the assessee has admitted only a sum of ₹.10 lakhs as his agricultural income during the year which has been credited to his capital account. However, no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the assessee in respect of the balance amount of ₹.3,54,000/-. After considering the submissions of the assessee and the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹.3,54,000/- as cash deposit was not explained satisfactorily. 6.2 Before us, the assessee has filed written submissions, wherein, it was contrarily mentioned in para 26 at page 6 that ₹.1,04,000/- was opening cash balance available as on 01.04.2010 and the remaining deposits as salary from sarasu chicken @ ₹.20,833/- per month from 30.04.2010 to 28.02.2011 and ₹ 20,837/- as on 31.03.2011 without any documentary evidence. However, in his counter reply to the remand report of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
