TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The diversion of the land was done by the authorised Revenue Department authorities on an express condition that the land so diverted should not be used for any purpose other than the development of a colony. The assessee had sold a plot admeasuring 4800 sq. ft. for a sum of Rs. 21,000 on 23-10-1982. Besides, the assessee himself constructed a house on some part of the land. However, during the course of assessment proceedings it was contended that although the assessee got the land diverted from the revenue authorities, he still continued agricultural operations on it. In support of the above contention, an affidavit sworn by the assessee was also filed. Copies of land revenue record were also filed. The contention of the assessee was not acceptable to the Assessing Officer. He negatived the assessee's claim that the land owned by the assessee was agricultural land with the following observations--- " Although entries in revenue records are good prima facie evidence to show that the land was used for agricultural purposes, the same should be supported by evidence such as payment received from parties for commodities sold and such other evidences connecting agricultural operation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the revenue authority and patwari is conclusive and final proof that the land was agricultural land and the said land was put to agricultural operations. It was explained that the last five years' record is maintained by the patwari and the records of earlier years are kept in the record room with the revenue authorities. It was due to this reason that the copy of Khasra Panchsala Nakal obtained in 1986 which was available with the revenue authorities was signed and sealed by the revenue authorities and record of Khasra Panchsala which was available with the patwari was signed by the Patwari only. It was vehernently argued before the DCWT(A) that there was no reason to disbelieve the Khasra Panchsala issued by the patwari. It was also submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing officer had not asked the assessee to produce purchase vouchers of manure and pesticides, etc. However, photocopies of the purchase bills of manures and pesticides, etc. had been filed before him. It was further contended that once it is established that particular land is used for agricultural purposes, the same has to be taken to be an agricultural land whose value cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gricultural as it was not used for a agricultural purposes. The contentions of the learned D.R. were opposed by Shri R. Tarwala, the learned counsel for the assessee. He supported the order of the DCWT(A). He submitted that the revenue has not disputed that the assessee had purchased 6.17 acres of agricultural land in the year 1977. He pointed out that the agricultural operations are being carried out on the said land and the documentary evidence brought on record by the assessee in support of his claim that the land was actually used for agricultural operations cannot be brushed aside. It is submitted that though the permission to divert the land for non-agricultural purposes was obtained as early as 13-2-1979, but it was not acted upon and the assessee continued to use the land for the purposes of growing crops, etc. as is evidenced by the certificates issued by the land revenue authorities. He further argued that necessary evidence in support of the purchase of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. have also been brought on record. The assessee had sold the agricultural produce in Krishi Upaj Mandi Prangan through licensed commission agents. He further submitted that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order was filed on 12-7-1995. A perusal of the said order reveals that the revenue authorities had granted permission for diversion of the agricultural land from agricultural use to non-agricultural use with certain conditions. Important among those are that the assessee shall use the land for the purpose for which the land has been permitted to be converted and that the assessee shall pay 'Lagan' as also 'Parivartan Lagan' as determined. The assessee shall also abide by the orders of the Government issued from time to time. The assessee undertook to abide by the conditions prescribed under the said order dated 22-6-1979 through an Ikrarnama of the same date, a copy of which has also been filed by the assessee. It is thus evident that soon after purchase of the agricultural land, the assessee took steps to convert the land for non-agricultural use and started paying Parivartan Lagan of Rs. 2687.65 per annum which is evident by the receipts brought on record by the assessee pertaining to each of the assessment years involved. Thereafter, the assessee undertook plotting of the land, as observed by the Assessing Officer, which finding has not been controverted by the assessee at any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
