9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unexplained investment in property, but, at the same time, remitted the matter to Assessing Officer to comply with the directions issued by him in this regard. As regards the second addition, Learned CIT(A) confirmed the same for the reasons recorded in the impugned order. Hence, this appeal. It may be mentioned here that the assessee challenged by way of this appeal, even the order vide which the matter, as regards the first addition remitted to the Assessing Officer. 5. Arguments heard. File perused. 6. The assessment proceedings were initiated on receipt of information available with the Income Tax Department that the assessee and another, namely, Smt. Saroj Sharma during financial year 2013-14, relevant to the assessment year 2014-15, purchased following immovable properties:- S. No. Khasra No. Date of purchase Amount of purchase 1. 3/4th par of 440/1.72 4-4-2013 19,58,300 2. 3/4th par of 440/1.72 4-4-2013 19,58,300 3. ½ part of Khasra 441/1.20 4-4-2013 18,21,600 4. Khasra No. 442/1.29 4-4-2013 20,33,220 5. Khasra No. 442/1.29 4-4-2013 20,33,220 Total 98,04,640 Further information received by the department was that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand, as regards the first issue/addition came to be passed subsequently, on 2.4.2024. In other words, said order came to passed by the Assessing Officer after filing of present appeal before this Appellate Tribunal. 11. As is available from the order dated 2.4.2024, the assessee participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer conducted while giving effect to the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A). From the factum of participation of the assessee in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer in compliance with the impugned order, it can safely be said that the assessee accepted the impugned order as regards deletion of the first mentioned addition with the direction for fresh decision after verification of certain facts. 12. In case the assessee felt aggrieved by said subsequent order dated 2.4.2024, she would have challenged the same, as per procedure, firstly, before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Learned AR for the appellant has not brought to our notice, either by way of any informatory application, or in the course of arguments that the appellant has challenged said assessment order dated 2.4.2024 before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). 13. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income. The assessee did not furnish any reply to the said notice dated 11.11.2019. Thereupon, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 20.11.2019 to the assessee. To the said show cause notice, the assessee submitted reply and details of purchase and sale of the said immovable properties, in the form of copy of deeds executed in this regard and pleaded said sale transactions were covered under head "Capital Gain". The Assessing Officer after taking into consideration the above said reply of the assessee did not accept her version that the said transactions of sale of immovable property were covered under the head "capital gain". In this regard, the Assessing Officer concluded that the said transactions of sale of immovable property were having the element of business transaction and adventure in the nature of trade. Relevant observations made by the Assessing Officer in this regard are extracted hereunder:- "It is also worthwhile to mention here that the assessee purchased the five lands under five different sale deeds. The first purchase was for Rs. 19,58,000/- and it covered a piece of land admeasuring 3/4th part of 440/1.72; the second purchase relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee was agricultural land, but the relevant period being harvesting season, there could be no cultivation in the said land. Ld. AR for the appellant-assessee has admitted that the land was sold by the appellant only 25 days after its purchase, but submitted that simply from this fact, no adverse inference could be drawn by the authorities below, so as to treat the transactions of sale as an adventure in trade, especially when the assessee had purchased said land with intent to cultivate, but, having regard to high prices offered for the same, she opted to sell the same. The contention is that in the given situation, the land continued to be an agricultural land, and the decisions relied on by the Assessing Officer were not applicable to the present case, but, even then Learned CIT(A) upheld the addition, instead of deleting the same. In support of his contention, Ld. AR for the appellant has relied on following decisions:- S. No. Particulars Page Nos. 1. Copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) vs Arun Majeed in its decision dated 19.07.2024 reported in 165 taxmann.com 457 01-10 2. Copy of or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition made on the amount of profit on said property, to the extent of half share sold by the assessee. In support of her contention, Ld. DR has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT, AIR 1993 SC 2585. 21. The question whether a transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade is to be decided on a consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances which are proved in the particular case. The answer to the question does not depend upon the application of any abstract rule or principle or formula but must depend upon the total impression and effect of all the relevant facts and circumstances established in the particular case. The magnitude of the transaction of purchase, the nature of the commodity, the subsequent dealings of the assessee, the nature of the organisation employed by the assessee and the manner of disposal may be such that the transaction may be stamped with the character of a trading nature. In this regard, reference may be made to decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in P. M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1969] 73 ITR 735 (SC). 22. Learned AR for the appellant has submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant purchased the four plots of land with the sole intention of selling them to the mills at a profit and that the High Court was right in holding that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade. There may be cases where the purchase was made solely and exclusively with the intention to resell at a profit and the purchaser had no intention of holding the property for himself or otherwise enjoying or using it. As held, the presence of such an intention is no doubt a relevant factor and unless it is offset by the presence of other factors, it would raise a strong presumption that the transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade. 26. In Smt. Indramani Bai v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, 1993] 70 Taxman 67 (SC), in December 1963, the assesses, the wives of two brothers, purchased a piece of land measuring 8.479 sq. yards in the Banjara Hills Area of Hyderabad, for a consideration of Rs. 10,820. Shortly after purchasing the land, they carved it into four plots and sold then, individually. Two agreements of sale were entered into, one in May 1964, and the other in July 1964, and sale deeds were executed in pursuance thereof on 9-101964 and 13-11-1964. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the abovesaid land, purchased other piece of land and then indulged in agriculture thereon. Had it been so, then the outcome might have been different. 27. It may be mentioned here that during pendency of this appeal, on behalf of the appellant an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, came to be filed with the prayer that copy of registered deed in respect of some other agricultural land held by the assessee-appellant in earlier years, in addition to her own affidavit, be taken in record and considered, as the same could not be submitted earlier before the authorities below. As regards the application, nowhere it has been averred as to why the documents now sought to be brought before us, were not produced before the authorities below. Both these could be submitted before the authorities below. Fact remains that these were not submitted there, for the reasons best known to the applicant. Even otherwise, the copy of sale deed sought to be produced before us does not pertain to the subject land. Learned AR for the applicant has not been able to convince us as to how said document is relevant for determination of the issue involved as re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
