9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 233/RPR/2024 Sanjog Jhabak 31.03.2024 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 04.03.2022. 3. 234/RPR/2024 Sanjog Jhabak, L/h. Late Shri Gautam Chand Jhabak, 31.03.2024 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022. 4. 235/RPR/2024 Sushila Devi Jhabak 31.03.2024 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 29.03.2022. 5. 236/RPR/2024 Tellottama Jhabak 31.03.2024 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 29.03.2022. 6. 237/RPR/2024 Smt. Pushpa Jhabak 31.03.2024 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022. 7. 478/RPR/2024 Sampatlal Jhabak 23.10.2024 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated30.05.2023. 2. Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing, submitted that as the issues leading to the controversy involved in the captioned appeals finds its genesis in common facts involved in the said respective appeals, therefore, the same can be taken up and disposed off vide a consolidated order. Elaborating further, the Ld. AR submitted that the appeal filed in ITA No.479/RPR/2024 in the case of Sanket Jhabak may be taken as the lead matter. 3. Shri S.L Anuragi, Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'CITDR") did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions stipulated u/s.54B were not satisfied thereby resulting into substitution over the plausible & justified view taken by the Ld.AO clearly based upon the material on record. Hence, it is prayed that the Order passed by the Ld.PCIT under the provisions of section 263 of the Act may please be cancelled & quashed in limine. GROUND No.IV. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.PCIT has grievously erred in cancelling/modifying the re-assessment order passed by the Ld.AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.05.2023 with direction to revise the reassessment order by disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.PCIT has failed to appreciate that the said reassessment order has been passed by the Ld.AO after conducting necessary & diligent enquiries and conscious application of mind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4B of the Act, dated 30.05.2023. 8. The Pr. CIT after culmination of the assessment was in receipt of information, which revealed that the assessee's claim for deduction of RS. 4,76,32,950/- u/s. 54B of the Act was not found in order. Elaborating on his view, the Pr. CIT observed that the pre-condition for claim of deduction u/s. 54B. i.e. the subject land transferred by the assessee was during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer was being used by the assessee or his parents for agricultural purposes was not found to be satisfied in his case. The Pr. CIT observed that the land revenue record issued by the Village Patwari stated that no agricultural activities were conducted on the subject land during F.Y. 2009-10, F.Y. 2010-11 and F.Y. 2012-13. Further, the Pr. CIT observed that the satellite data taken by ISRO on 23.01.2010, 02.10.2011, 19.11.2011, 23.03.2012 and 29.05.2012, revealed that the usage pattern of the subject land was shown as "fallow land" and also, there was no change in the usage of the same during the corresponding period. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT based on the aforesaid facts held a firm conviction that as the subject land transferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid persons vide their respective reports had stated as under: "The image in the Google Historical imagery available for May 2012 shows that the land marked in the circle as 1 and 2 available in Google historical imagery is post harvest land. The land marked as 1 is after Kharif Crop harvest and due to the time lapse from harvest which may be around November till May the rice straw have become nominal but still visible. Whereas the land marked as 2 is also post harvest land but after Rabi crop has been harvested which may be around March. The difference in the Colour in the two images is due to Farming and Cultivation being carried on in case of place marked as 2 i.e. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvidhyala is of Rabi Crop which takes place in late November-December and March respectively. Where as the post cultivation image during May 2012 of the image marked as 1 is of Kharif Crop harvesting which would have been done around November, 2011. This is not at all possible as after Kharif crop harvest, if in the next Kharif season no farming is carried on in the farm land, the land will get filled with water during monsoon and when there is no farming, rice straw of the previous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /129, 247/129, 246/160, 247/160 and 248/118 in P. H. NO.113/44, situated at Village : Labhandi, Tehsil & District : Raipur (C.G.), admeasuring 5.839 acres (2.363 Hectare), vide a registered sale deed dated 21st day of August, 2012 for an aggregate sale consideration of Rs.63,76,44,328/- (the assessee's 1/9th share being Rs.7,08,49,370/-), and the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of Section 50C was found to be the same. It was further observed by him that the subject land was sold by the co-owners to a corporate entity i.e. M/s. Reliance Progressive Traders Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Raman Rati Apartment, Near Ashapura Hotel, Saru Section Road, Jamnagar, Gujarat-361 002. Apart from that, the Pr. CIT observed that the "Panchshala khasra" attached alongwith the registered sale deed clearly described the land khasra number 246/3 and 246/127 as "padath land" (i.e. barren land) for more than 5 years. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT observed that as per the revenue records i.e. the "panchshala khasra" annexed with the registered sale deed the nature of land was described as "barren land". 13. The Pr. CIT observed that the Village patwari of Ph. No.65 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, wherein it was stated that though they had been cultivating the subject land since long but the land revenue officials had erroneously recorded the same in their revenue records as non-agricultural land. Also, the Pr. CIT observed that the assessee had filed a copy of the order passed by Naib Tehsilder, Raipur, dated 12.03.2020 under Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 wherein the latter had observed that entry in the manual panchshala had inadvertently not been entered as paddy irrigated land. The Pr. CIT, further observed, that the official scientist of the Chhattisgarh Counsel of Science & Technology (for short "CCOST"), vide a confidential letter No.1658/CCOSP/2020, dated 06.02.2020, had submitted that the subject land as per the satellite mapping done by the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), on various dates, i.e. 23.01.2010, 02.10.2011, 19.11.2011, 29.05.2012 and 23.03.2012 was a "fallow land", meaning thereby, it was not used for agricultural purpose/operations during the period falling between the year 2010 to 2012 i.e. the substantial time period prior to its sale on 21.08.2012. The Pr. CIT after taking cognizance of the fact that while for the A.O in case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certified that no agricultural activities on the subject land was carried out during F.Y(s).2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13, and the same were only carried out in F.Y.2011-12. Apart from that, it was observed by him that the "panchshala khasra" attached with the registered sale deed clearly described the land khasra number 246/3 and 246/127 as "padath land" for more than 5 years. Also, the Pr. CIT had drawn support from the fact that the assessee in his returns of income that were filed prior to the date of registration of the sale deed i.e. on 21.08.2012, not disclosed any agriculture income in the same. Further, the Pr. CIT to fortify his conviction that the assessee had not carried out agricultural activities on the subject land had drawn support from the fact that no cogent evidence regarding carrying out of the agricultural operations, viz. (i) proof of revenue records like chitta, khasra khatuni, panchshala; (ii) proof of sale of agricultural produce made to marketing societies or third parties etc. (iii) proof of purchase of agricultural seeds, fertilizers; and (iv) evidence of payments to the agricultural labourers etc. were filed either in the course of the assessment or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eport stating to the contrary was available on record. 18. Apropos the assessee's claim that as per Section(s) 115, 116 & 117 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the order of Naib Tehsildar, dated 12.03.2020, wherein he had acknowledged the erroneous entries in the khasra or any other land records, was final and unquestionable in the eyes of law, the Pr. CIT did not find favour with the same. It was observed by him that Section 115 of the Land Revenue Code provided for the correction of a wrong entry in khasra and any other land records by the superior officers. It was further observed by him that Sec. 115 (supra) provided that in case if any Tahsildar found that a wrong or an incorrect entry had been made in the land records prepared u/s. 114 of the Land Revenue Code by an officer subordinate to him, then, he shall direct necessary changes to be made in "red ink" after making such inquiry from the person concerned as he may deem fit after giving a written notice. The Pr. CIT further referring to Section 116 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959, observed that the same provided for the manner in which the disputes regarding entry in khasra or in any other land records were to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no agricultural activities were carried out on the subject land during the relevant period. Also, the Pr. CIT had pressed into service the Inspector report, dated 07.02.2019, wherein it was reported by him that the subject land was not being used for the purpose of agriculture for more than 5 to 10 years. The Pr. CIT in order to strengthen his conviction of absence of any agricultural activity on the subject land in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred i.e. 21.08.2012, had obtained Google Earth Imagery for the said relevant period i.e. 21.08.2010 to 21.08.2012, pertaining to the kharif and Rabi season, which as per him established the absence of agricultural activities on the subject land i.e. on 17.05.2012 (i.e. 3 months before the date on which the land was sold). The Pr. CIT after objectively analyzing the aspect, i.e. as to whether or not agricultural operations were carried out on the subject land in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred had drawn support from the evidences, viz. (i) Inspector report dated 07.02.2019; (ii) non-disclosure of agriculture income in the returns of income filed prior to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 based on his two fold contentions, viz. (i) that the Pr. CIT had grossly erred in law and facts of the case by traversing beyond the scope of the revisional jurisdiction vested with him u/s.263 of the Act; and (ii) that the Pr. CIT had based on his perverse observations concluded that the assessee a/w. 8 other coowners (family members) had not carried out agricultural operations on the subject land in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the said land was transferred. 24. Apart from that, the Ld. AR has assailed the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act regarding the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by him for passing an order u/s. 263 of the Act, which in turn, was based on the multi-facet issues therein involved, viz. (i) as the order passed by the A.O u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.03.2023 was in itself invalid and void-ab-initio, therefore, the same could not have been revised u/s. 263 of the Act for the reason, i.e. (a) that the reassessment order was passed based on the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 26.07.2022 which was barred by limitation; (b) that as per the post-ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out any verification allowed the assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, therefore, the Pr. CIT had rightly exercised his revisional jurisdiction and set-aside the reassessment order u/s 263 of the Act. 26. The Ld. AR has assailed before us the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 by primarily focusing on two material aspects, viz. (a) that as the assessee a/w. 8 other co-owners (family members) were using the subject land for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred, therefore, the Pr. CIT had wrongly concluded that the said pre-condition entitling the assessee for claiming deduction u/s. 54B of the Act was not found to have been satisfied; and (b) that the Pr. CIT had exceeded the jurisdiction that was vested with him u/s. 263 of the Act and dislodged the well-reasoned order of reassessment that was passed by the A.O, wherein, the latter based on the material available on record had taken a plausible view as regards the assessee's entitlement for claim of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act. 27. As the Ld. AR has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been considered and decided in such appeal. Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in conseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax while exercising the revisional jurisdiction is not sitting in appeal. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court are culled out as under: "........As is clear from the language of the provision, there has to be a proper application of mind by the Commissioner to come to a firm conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Thus, two conditions need to be satisfied for invoking such a power by the Commissioner, which are: (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests, of the Revenue. At the same time, this court has also laid down that this provision can-not be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error com-mitted by the Assessing. Officer. While interpreting the expression "pre-judicial to the interests of the Revenue", it is also held that the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be termed as prejudicial simply because the Assessing Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act and brought to tax as per the special rates provided in Section 115BBE of the Act. As the reply of the assessee that the excess stock found in the course of survey proceedings was recorded in his books of account for the subject year, thus, Section 69 of the Act would not be attracted found favour with the A.O, therefore, he accepted the same. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT after culmination of the assessment proceedings, held that as the A.O had failed to treat the excess stock found during the course of survey proceedings as the assessee's unexplained investment and subjected the same to tax as per the special rates u/s. 115BBE of the Act, therefore, the same had rendered the assessment order passed by him as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s. 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT drawing support from "Explanation-2" to Section 263 of the Act set-aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the file of A.O for fresh adjudication by passing a fresh assessment order after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 31. On appeal, the Hon'ble High Court observed that as the A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous and it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, are not satisfied at all to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act, as the Assessing Officer has passed the order of assessment after conducting inquiry. As such, the learned PCIT is absolutely unjustified in invoking the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act which has rightly been set-aside by the ITAT." 32. Also, we find that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), had held, that the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot revise the order merely because he disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the A.O. The Hon'ble High Court, observed that Section 263 does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Referring to the facts involved in the case before them, it was observed that where the Income-tax Officer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested with him in accordance with law and arrived at conclusion, therefore, the view so taken by him cannot be terme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that though the "Explanation-2" to Section 263 of the Act (as had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015), inter alia, contemplates that if, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the order is passed by the A.O without making inquiries or verification which should have been made, then the order so passed shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, but the same cannot be triggered in case where the A.O had carried out inquiry/verification, however, inadequate. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Bramha Centre Development Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 116 & 118/2021, dated 05.07.2021 and in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Klaxon Trading (P). Ltd., ITA No.125 of 2021, dated 29.11.2023. 36. We shall now in the backdrop of the scope and gamut of Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon'ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the land sold was utilized for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years. 2. Supporting documents for exemption claimed u/s.54F 3. Proof for investment in REC bond 4. Proof for deposit of Capital gain account 5. Details of the residential house owned by you at the time of transfer of the asset." (emphasis supplied by us) In reply, we find that the assessee vide his submission filed/uploaded with the A.O on 08.04.2023, had rebutted the aforesaid adverse inferences that were sought to be drawn based on the report on the satellite data images that was prepared by the Chhattisgarh Space Applications Centre, Chhattisgarh Council of Science & Technology (CCOST) with reference to five specific dates, viz. 23.03.2012, 02.10.2011, 19.11.2011, 29.05.2012 and 23.01.2010. It was stated by the assessee that as the images extracted pertained to the months of January, October, November, February and May, while for the cultivation of the paddy crop on the said land as was recorded in the revenue records was, viz. (i) the sowing time of winter (kharif) rice was June and July; and (ii) harvesting period (cutting time) was August and September, which though was dependent on multiple f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erminative of the nature of crops sown, It is further submitted that the main rice growing season in the state of Chhattisgarh is the 'Kharif' season. It is known as winter rice as per the harvesting time. The state is comprised with three agroecological zones i.e. Chhattisgarh plains (applicable in the instant case), Bastar plateau and northern hill region of surguja, These zones have huge variations in terms of soil topography, rainfall intensity and distribution, irrigation and adoption of agricultural production system and thus varies in the productivity of rice in these regions. The sowing time of winter (kharif) rice is June-July and it is harvested (cut) in August- September depending upon the quality of rice, the land holding area, the amount of rainfall in the season etc. Hence, the Satellite Images prepared by the CCSR does not correspond to the sowing seal nor the harvesting season, since, no images for the months of June to September, 2010 or June to September, 2011 is not been considered nor is there any reference to the said months which are the crucial months for determining the 'Paddy' crop sown & harvested in the Kharif Season which is relevant in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 30.05.2023 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s. 263 of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the relevant extract of the "SCN", dated 18.04.2024 of the Pr. CIT is culled out, as under: ".........Further, as per the satellite data taken by ISRO on 23.01.2010, 02.10.2011, 19.11.2011, 23.03.2012 and 29.05.2012 shows that the said land usage pattern is "fallow land" and there was no change in land use during the corresponding period. This fortifies the fact that the land was not used for agriculture purpose for period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer which violates the provision of section 54B of the Act. 4. As the aforesaid issue of claiming exemption u/s 54B was not properly examined during the course of assessment proceedings in the light of ISRO report (copy enclosed), the order passed in this case appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue." 42. Apart from that, we find that as the assessee, thereafter, had in the course of the revisional proceedings filed before the Pr. CIT reports from two experts, viz. (i) Dr. Neerav Sharma, Liasion Officer, IIT Roorkee Development Found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 21.03.2016. As observed by us hereinabove, the aforesaid facts can safely be gathered on a perusal of the information that was shared by the A.O with the assessee u/s. 148A(b) of the Act, wherein the latter was called upon to explain as to why notice u/s. 148 of the Act may not be issued in his case, Page 160-161 of APB. As the aforesaid issue had, inter alia, formed a basis for reopening of the concluded assessment of the assessee, therefore, the A.O, vide his notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023 had specifically called upon the assessee to substantiate, based on evidence, that the subject land sold by him a/w. the other co-owners (family members) was used for agricultural purpose in the two years immediately preceding the date of its transfer, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, Page 219 to 221 of APB. Also, as have purposively been culled out by us hereinabove, the assessee vide his reply filed/uploaded with the A.O on 08.04.2023, had, inter alia, rebutted the aforesaid documents that were earlier sought to be pressed into service by him for dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om ISRO; and (ii). report of the CCOST, Raipur. Apart from that, we find that, the A.O in the course of reassessment proceedings vide notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, Page 219 to 221 of APB, had specifically called upon the assessee to place on record documents which would support his claim that the subject land was used for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred and, thus, his claim of deduction u/s. 54B was in order. Also, the assessee considering the fact that adverse inferences as regards his claim of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act were sought to be drawn by the A.O, inter alia, based on, viz. (i) the satellite images obtained from ISRO for certain specific dates, viz. 23.03.2012, 02.10.2011, 19.11.2011, 29.05.2012 and 23.01.2010; and (ii) the report of the CCOST, Raipur, wherein, it was stated that no agricultural activities were carried out on the subject land in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred i.e. on 21.08.2012, had vide his reply dated 08.04.2023, referring to the said material/documents and rebutted the adverse inferences which were sought to be dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Pr. CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction had sought to substitute the view that was arrived at by him by analyzing the satellite imageries provided by ISRO and the CCOST report, as against the plausible view that was arrived at by the A.O after carrying out necessary verifications, inquiries and deliberations. We are afraid that seeking of such substitution of view by the Pr. CIT falls beyond the scope and realm of the revisional jurisdiction vested with him under Section 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view that the Pr. CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction cannot sit as an appellate authority and seek substitution of his view as against the possible and plausible view arrived at by the A.O after carrying out necessary verifications and inquiries is supported by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). Also, we find that a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Mahavir Ashok Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2024) 167 taxmann.com 396 (Chhattisgarh) and the Hon'ble High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter alia, based on the manual report of the Village patwari, dated 03.09.2019 (supra) was in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred not used for agricultural purposes, thus, the assessee had vide his reply dated 08.04.2023, Page 367 to 371 of APB rebutted the same and had substantiated his claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act by drawing support from, viz. (i) patwari report/panchshala wherein it was stated by him that the google earth map drawn on 05.12.2010 revealed the "post- harvest" situation of the land; (ii) computerized land revenue records; and (iii) order dated 12.03.2020 passed by Naib Tehsildar, District : Raipur on an application filed by the assessee a/w. the other 8 co-owners (family members) under Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, wherein it was stated by him that due to a clerical mistake in the manual records, the land usage was wrongly recorded in the revenue record as "Padati bhumi" for F.Y.2010-11 while for the computerized revenue records stating to the contrary was correct. 51. Although, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the Village patwari vide his report dated 03.09.2019 (supra) had, inter alia, stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y" in the revenue records for F.Y.2010-11. At the same time, it was observed by him that as there was no provision to update the revenue records, therefore, the said case was being filed. 53. Accordingly, the assessee to rebut the adverse inferences which the A.O had sought to draw to dislodge the assessee's claim for deduction u/s.54B of the Act, i.e. the manual Patwari report, dated 03.09.2019 (supra), wherein it was, inter alia, stated that the subject land was not used for agricultural purposes during F.Y.2010-11, had filed exhaustive submissions and documents proving to the contrary, viz. (i) computerized land revenue records certified by patwari based on the google map drawn on 05.12.2010, as per which, the subject land was being cultivated since long; and (ii) Order passed by the Naib Tehsildar, District: Raipur in the Revenue Case No.B-121/Year 2019-20 of Gautam Chand Jhabak & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, dated 12.03.2020, wherein he had held that the subject land was cultivated since long and the factum of cultivation of paddy had all along been rightly reflected and registered in the online B-1 khasra in all the years. Also, it was observed by him that due to a cler ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/120, 247/120, 246/122, 247/122 etc. at Village Labhandih was being cultivated since long (Cultivation of Paddy duly registered in the Patwari Records for the Year 2011-12) and the factum of cultivation of paddy has been rightly reflected & registered in Online B-1 Khasra in all the years all along and merely owing to clerical mistake/nonupdation when making entries in Record Roster of Patwari, the cultivation of Paddy or agricultural activity has been fallaciously recorded as "Padati" Bhumi and after consideration of the entire conspectus of the case before him, in view of the plenary pow( conferred upon him under sections 115 & 116 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the Ld. Nayab Tahsildar ordered that in respect of the aforesaid agricultural lands, in place "Padati" Bhumi, the crop cultivated should have been recorded as "Paddy" in respect of Year 2010-11 however, there being no provision to update the records, the said case was disposed off." "(iv) It is further imperative to point out that the Patwari Incharge on the basis of very same Google Map Image drawn on 05.12.2010 prepared a Panchanama Report diligently taking into consideration the Potwari (Panchsala Khasra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p" in F.Y.2010-11. 55. At this stage, it would be relevant to point out that though the A.O in the body of the assessment order had not vociferously spelled out his aforesaid observation, i.e. agricultural operations were carried out on the subject land in F.Y.2010-11, but cannot remain oblivion of the fact that he had vide his notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023 (supra) called upon the assessee to substantiate, based on the supporting documents, that the subject land in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred used for agricultural purposes. Thereafter, the assessee in his reply to the aforesaid information that was called for by A.O based on the Patwari report (manual), dated 03.09.2019 (supra), wherein it was stated that no agricultural operations were carried out on the subject land in F.Y.2010-11, had furnished an exhaustive reply dated 08.04.2023, wherein based on, viz. (i) computerized revenue records; and (ii) Order of the Naib Tehsildar dated 12.03.2020, he had dispelled the adverse inferences that were sought to be drawn as regards his claim for deduction u/s.54B of the Act. As the A.O had after necessary deliberations accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote with the assessment order to explain why the addition for allegation discrepancy in stock was not being made. In the absence of any suggestion by the CIT as to how the inquiry was not proper, we are unable to uphold the action taken by him under Section 263 of the Act." (emphasis supplied by us) 56. Once again, we are of a firm conviction that the A.O in the present case had after considering the reply filed by the assessee, wherein he had in the course of reassessment proceedings rebutted/dispelled the adverse inferences which the A.O had sought to draw as regards his claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act, i.e., inter alia, for the reason that as per the patwari report, dated 03.09.2019 (supra) no agricultural operations were carried out on the subject land in F.Y.2010-11, had, thus, arrived at a possible and plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction could not have sought to substitute his view as against that which was arrived at by the A.O based on necessary inquiries and verifications. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing a reference to the A.O, Verification Unit, Raipur ["A.O (VU)", for short]. 58. As is discernible from the record the A.O (VU), had thereafter, issued summons u/s. 131(1) of the Act, dated 22.04.2023 to the assessee, viz. Shri Sanket Jhabak, Page 224 to 226 of APB, wherein he was, inter alia, called upon to substantiate based on corroborative material his claim that the subject land was used for agricultural purposes during the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred. Also, the A.O (VU) had informed the assessee that the matter was assigned to him for physical verification and inquiry of the genuineness of his claim of deduction raised u/s. 54B of the Act. In compliance, the assessee vide his reply dated 26.04.2023, Page 378 to 387 of APB, had relied on the case of the another co-owner, viz. Shri Sanjog Jhabak, wherein, involving identical facts, the A.O in the latter's case had vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 04.03.2022 allowed his claim for deduction of Rs. 4.85 crore (supra) u/s. 54B of the Act. Once again, the assessee had before the A.O (VU), vide his reply dated 26.04.2023 (supra), to buttress his claim that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal Verification Report", dated 03.05.2023, concluded that the subject land was used for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred i.e. F.Y.2010-11 and F.Y 2011-12. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the A.O(VU) recorded in the "Physical Verification Report", dated 03.05.2023 is culled out as under: (relevant extract) "During Physical Verification Proceedings, on visiting the above land, we have met with Shri Hrithram Nisad, Ex Serviceman, security person from J.B Security Corporation appointed to look after and care the property and stated that previously, my family along with my forefather's have been doing agricultural activities since 2005-06 on the above land and growing paddy for Jhabak Faimly and for irrigation there was a well and also give glimpse of this. All the expenses on agricultural activities was borne by us and the production was used by us for our requirements, if anything remained that was given to assessee i.e Jhabak Family. But, after the transfer of property, the present owner has denied to do agricultural activities, because he has some future plan and but now no any project was dev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) Naib Tehsildar, Raipur, order dated 12.03.2020; (iii) opinion of Shri Saurabh Rathi (supra), but in fact, the department itself, i.e. the A.O (VU) who had based on his necessary inquiries/verifications/recording of statements and carrying out physical inspection of the site vide his "Physical Verification Report", dated 03.05.2023, had concurred with and accepted the assessee's claim. Considering the fact that the A.O(VU) in his "Physical Verification Report" (supra) had based on his inquiries/verifications reported that the subject land was in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred used for agricultural purposes, we find no reason as to why the view taken by the A.O in his order of reassessment passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.05.2023 by relying on the said report amongst others, wherein he had accepted the assessee's claim as regards usage of the land during the relevant period for agricultural purposes is not to be construed as a possible and plausible view arrived at by him while framing the reassessment. 62. As deliberated by us at length hereinabove, the fact that the computerized revenue records certified by the patwar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween the years 1980 to 1983, complemented the revenue record of 1952 in which the lands were shown as agricultural and not as jungle or forest. 64. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering the aforesaid facts in the backdrop of the material available before them, had observed, that the satellite images may not always reveal a complete story. Also, it was observed that there was no justifiable reason for not giving credence to the "revenue records" since the same pertained to a time when the impugned project was not even in anyone's imagination and its proponents were nowhere on the scene. We, thus, based on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Construction of park at NOIDA near Okhla Bird Sanctuary Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) are of a firm conviction that in the case of the present assessee, the revenue records which evidence that the subject land in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred was used for agricultural purposes ought to have been given credence as against the satellite imageries that have been pressed into service by the Pr. CIT, i.e. satellite images obtained from ISRO and CCOST reports (supra) ana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tution of the view of the revisional authority by imposing the manner of analyzing of the documents/material as desired by him as against that adopted by the A.O i.e. a quasi-judicial authority, for arriving at a possible and plausible view, which, as observed by us at length hereinabove is not permissible as per the mandate of law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in, viz. (i) CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC); (ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); (iii) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of, viz. (i) Pr. CIT Vs. Mahavir Ashok Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2024) 167 taxmann.com 396 (Chhattisgarh); and (ii) ACIT Vs. Sun and Sun Inframetric Pvt. Ltd., Tax case No.5 of 2022, dated 03.08.2023 (Chhattisgarh). 67. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations hold a firm conviction that as the Ld. Pr. CIT had in exercise of the powers vested with him u/s. 263 of the Act dislodged a possible and plausible view that was arrived at by the A.O after carrying out necessary inquiries, verifications and deliberations on the issue in hand, i.e. the subject land in the two years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
