TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Petitioner : S. Dasgupta For the Respondent : N. Devanathan ORDER V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-III, Chennai dated 08-08-2011 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual. He has filed a return of income admitting total income of ₹ 12,04,59,720/-. The return was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, it was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) by determining the total income at ₹ 12,45,87,803/- by adding ₹ 41,28,083/- towards long term capital gains on sale of agricultural land. 3. During the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asible and topography of the lay out, the property under consideration could not be classified as agriculture in nature. The Registration Department of the Government of Tamilnadu has classified the property as residential way back in the year 2003 while the property was sold in the year 2007. The Department having provided the data on the sale value of the land based on sq. ft. and sq. mtr. scale and disdaining itself from giving such information on acre and hectare scale itself strengthens the department s view that the property under consideration is not agricultural land in nature. The Assessing Officer has further observed that the assessee produced a certificate from the VAO, Kanathur Reddykuppam dated 23-09- 2010 that the said land i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the learned CIT(Appeals) that the area in which the land belonging to the assessee was situated was vast developing area and on that basis alone it cannot be said that the assessee s land is not agricultural land. It was further submitted that the land is situated in Coastal Regulation Zone and hence construction activity is not permitted. It was further submitted before the learned CIT(Appeals) that the land was purchased on 8-10-2004 and at the time of purchase the land was agricultural land. Even the letter issued by the VAO dated 23-09-2010 shows that the land belonging to the assessee was agricultural land. He further submitted that the assessee has cultivated vegetables in that land and mostly used for self-consumption. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied as a residential land and, therefore, the certificate issued by the VAO cannot supersede the classification made by the Tamilnadu Government. He further argued that the assessee has not offered a single penny as agricultural income. Therefore it shows that the assessee has not carried on any agricultural operations. He relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim And Others v. CIT (204 ITR 631)(SC). In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that whether the land is agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. It has to be decided based on various facts and circumstances of the case. The other decision relied on by the learned DR is Fazalbhoy Investment Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (176 ITR 523) (Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low. The only issue in this appeal is whether the land purchased by the assessee is agricultural land or not. The assessee had purchased a piece of land measuring 25 cents at Kanathur Reddykuppam in the year 2004 for ₹ 8,71,917/-. Subsequently the assessee sold the same land on 16-04-2007 to Smt. Saroja Thyagarajan for ₹ 50 lakhs. According to the assessee the land sold by him is agricultural land and no capital gains tax is required to be paid. According to the Assessing Officer as per the Tamilnadu Government Revenue record (SRO) this land was already classified as a residential area land and also as per the lay out proper roads had already been laid providing access to each plot located in it and the assessee has not carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the assessee was unable to answer. But he submitted that the assessee has carried on some vegetable cultivation and the produce was used for self-consumption. There is nothing available on record to believe the submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee. In fact, the Assessing Officer has given a categorical finding that the sketch of the lay out in which the property under consideration is constituted, was examined. The lay out was made in the year 2004 and proper roads had been laid having access to the plots situated in it and for the past many years, i.e. from the year 2004 when the assessee had purchased the land no single penny was offered as agricultural income. Nothing was brought on record to contradict the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
