Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 505 - ITAT PUNEIncome arising on sale of land at Village Dhamane - agricultural land - HELD THAT:- The land at Village Dhamane is clearly established to be an agricultural land. It had been specifically analyzed in detail by the Tribunal in SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR K. GOYAL VERSUS ACIT [2014 (11) TMI 258 - ITAT PUNE] and the Revenue has not brought in any evidence or materials on record to negate the assertions made by the assessee neither they have controverted any facts on record. Evidently, the assessee has shown in the Balance Sheet the land in question as a ‘Personal Asset’ as distinct from ‘Business Assets’. The agricultural lands held by the assessee are for a substantial period of time and assessee has been showing such assets as a part of his ‘Personal Assets’, being ‘investments’ and not as ‘Business Assets’ in the Balance Sheet filed along with the respective returns of income. We hold that the Sub-ordinate Authorities had erred in treating the income arising on the sale of such land at Village Dhamane as sale of stock in trade and in our view, income arising on sale of land at Village Dhamane was on account of sale of investment. Since, there is no dispute that the land in question carried the features prescribed in section 2(14)(iii) and moreover, being analyzed by the Tribunal in the earlier orders, it qualifies to be an agricultural land excludable from the expression “capital asset”. We therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition on this count from the hands of the assessee. Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. Deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) - treating business advance received from Kohinoor Shelter Private Limited - assessee filed additional evidences vide letter containing MOU between the assessee and M/s. Kohinoor Shelters Pvt. Ltd. which was subsequently cancelled along with confirmation of accounts - HELD THAT:- The view of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is that since the affidavit of Mr. L.R Agarwal dated 14.03.2012 was filed at delayed time and therefore, the AO is correct that the story of MOU and its cancellation is nothing but an afterthought without any specific findings or reasons given on his part, is therefore, not correct. That within the ambit of Rule 46A, the Ld. CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidences and should have followed the procedure laid down therein. The grievance of the assessee in the additional ground along with this ground in the appeal Memo is with regard to non admission of additional evidences by the CIT(A). We further observe that these additional evidences were not accepted by the AO since the assessment order was already passed. In the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of Assessing officer and direct the assessee to produce all the additional evidences before the AO and present their case on merits. - Ground of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
|