Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 669 - AT - Income TaxTreatment of Land as Agricultural land - No agriculture operations carried out on land - Dis-allowance of expenses - Held that:- We have heard rival contentions of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has verified the sale deed, record of rights and the certificate of village Panchayat Batim. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the land has been purchased and it is sold within three financial year. The land has cashew nuts, mango trees, teak wood plantation and tenant is cultivating the same and pressing his tenancy right. The Ld. CIT(A) has given this fact on the basis of the evidence that the tenant has filed the suit against the owner of the property. Ld. CIT(A) has also further held that the land is not within 8 km. from the municipal limit. Ld. CIT(A) has held that assessee is a real estate developer, but he has not shown this purchase of land as stock-in-trade in his books of accounts. The Ld. CIT(A) has verified the balance sheet of the assessee and found that the land is recorded as investment. The assessee sought permission from village Panchayat for construciton of farm house. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that this land is agricultural land this is a finding of fac. The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim [1993 (9) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court]. These tests were considered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ms. Debbie Alemao and Jaoquim Alemao [2010 (9) TMI 560 - Bombay High Court]. Learned CIT(A) relied upon this decision and held that the land in questions an agricultural land and income from sale of such land will not farm part of gross total income. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, we confirm the action of Ld. CIT(A) and appeal of the Department is dismissed. In relation to dis-allowance of expenses , it was held that we have heard rival contentions of both the parties. The Ld. CIT(A) has verified the vouchers of the assessee and did not find any mistake, therefore he has deleted the addition. During the course of hearing, learned DR did not point out any material against the finding of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we confirm the same. - Decided against the revenue.
|