9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is an individual and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 02.11.2012 admitting an income of Rs..41,91,445/-. The return filed by the assessee was duly processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short]. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer noticed that there is an escapement of income for taxation and issued notice under section 148 of the Act and the assessment was completed after following due procedure under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 25.03.2016. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee sold following properties: 1. All that piece and parcel of agricultural land comprised in old survey Nos. 235/1 to 10 and 236/1 to 5 to the extent of 14 acres and 97 cents. Total sale consideration: Rs. 6,53,26,800/- 2. All that piece and parcel of agricultural land comprised in old survey Nos. 238/1 to 10 to the extent of 9 acres and 48 cents. Total sale consideration: Rs.85,32,000/- 3. All that piece and parcel of agricultural land comprised in old survey Nos. 234, 237 and 220 to the extent of 27.24 acres. Total sale consideration: Rs.12,50,000/- During the course of scrutiny ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from taxation as per provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer considered the explanation and he has noted that the entire property was sold to M/s. Akshya Private Limited and to Shri Chitty Babu (MD of M/s. Akshya Private Limited) in 4 parts. Further, the assessee purchased the lands in question during 2003 through the deeds of purchase mention the description of lands as agricultural dry lands, a careful perusal of the factual matrix goes to show that the assessee has not utilized the said lands for agriculture. Further the assessee has not offered any agricultural income for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the Assessing Officer came to conclusion that the land is not in use for agricultural purposes and not eligible for claiming exemption under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has purchased the land in 2003 as an agricultural land and sold it as it is. The purchase deed and sale deed both mentions the title of the land as an agricultural land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land purchased by the assessee was an agricultural land and the same was sold as it is. It is immaterial as to whether the land was sold to Real Estate Company or any other person. The point for consideration is only whether the land is an agricultural land or not. The Revenue records of the Tamil Nadu Government shows that the land is an agricultural land and the certificate issued by the Revenue authority, the land which is in dispute, where mango trees and coconut trees are in existence and therefore, the Assessing Officer was not correct in saying that the land is not an agricultural land. The certificate issued by the VAO clearly shows that the land sold by the assessee as per Revenue records as punja land and also fit for cultivation. Moreover, the assessee has not converted the land into non-agricultural purposes before the land was sold. Not showing agricultural income in the return of income filed by the assessee out of agricultural operations carried by the assessee cannot change the title of the land as non-agricultural land. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the land sold by the assessee was an agricultural land a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the land continues to remain as an agricultural land. Apart from that, the land in question upon being transferred to the purchaser, still continues to remain as agricultural land. Therefore, we cannot be called upon to examine the factual findings recorded by the Tribunal while affirming the factual findings rendered by the CIT(A) as if we are third appellate authority. A similar view was taken in the case of CIT(A) vs. P. Ashok Kumar, in T.C.A.No.268 of 2011, dated 02.01.2019. 14. Mr. T.R. Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel referred to the decision in the case of PCIT vs. A. Lalichan reported in [2019] 104 taxmann.com 30 (Madras). We find that the said decision cannot be of any assistance to the case of the Revenue because the finding given by the Division Bench in paragraph 9 clearly shows that the land though was mentioned as an agricultural land in the sale deed, in the agreement for sale entered much prior to the sale, it was not described as an agricultural land and the agreement clearly shows that the land was being sold to a promoter, who has paid the entire sale consideration and the vendors are also executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
