Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 281 - AT - Income TaxShort term capital gain on sale of land - nature of land sold - CIT-A deleting the addition treating the land as agricultural land - fair market value of the property - invoking provisions of section 50C - HELD THAT:- Sub divisional magistrate has held that the plot sold by the assessee are agricultural land. According to us, this fact has not relevance. What is relevant is what is the fair market value of the property that has been sold by the assessee as per the circle rate. CIT appeal has not at all considered it and proceeded to delete the addition on altogether irrelevant considerations. We set aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to show what is the fair market value of the property sold by the assessee as per the circle rate. Such circle rate is required to be adopted as the net sale consideration and resultant computation of capital gain is required to be made. The learned AO may also enquire the same to the registering authority. Revenue Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. Treatment of agricultural income shown by the assessee as income from other sources - CIT-A has deleted the whole addition as AADHAR card or Voter identification has been given by those persons - HELD THAT:- There is no concrete finding about the difference between the agricultural produce. He also did not examine the facts that how the persons of such a small mean could have given the rent in advance to the assessee. He also did not gave any finding that the amount of rent paid by the other person is out of borrowings and what could have been the sources of borrowing by that person to pay such a huge rent to the assessee. He merely believed the written submission of the assessee for deleting the addition. Therefore, we do not find that on the facts stated by the learned assessing officer the addition deserves to be deleted. We further fully agree with DR that the learned assessing officer should have made the addition as unexplained credit u/s 68 but the learned assessing officer under the mistake has made the addition as income from other sources. We are not concerned with it and now we cannot correct it also. No infirmity in the order of AO in treating the above income as income from other sources and certainly not as an agricultural income. We confirm the action of the AO in holding that agricultural income shown by the assessee is income from other sources. We reverse the order of the CIT appeal and restore the order of the learned assessing officer; consequently, ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed.
|