TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andhinagar vide his order dated November 28, 2003. IT(SS)A No. 324/Ahd/2004: The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is whether the land transferred to M/s. Jaiprabhu Seeds and Ginning Factory, Mansa is an agricultural land or not, or land is a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act or not. The briefly stated facts are that the assessee and his two other relatives Shri Ramjibhai Prabhudas and Shri Bhagubhai Valjibhai invested a sum of Rs. 1,85,000 in purchase of an agricultural land which was situated at Survey No. 485/2 of Mansa Village in February 1992. The assessee's share was 25 per cent. and the investment in the said land was made by the assessee at Rs. 46,375. The said agricultural land was transferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of section 2(47)(v), there is a transfer and consideration has been credited in the assessee's account by the firm. The contention of the assessee that the agricultural land is situated in rural area and hence not within the ambit of section 2(14) of the Act and hence there will be no taxable gain is also not acceptable because of the facts that the construction of property in the said land, i.e., shed was started in the month of July, 1995 which proves that the land was not an agricultural land and was converted into non-agricultural land. Moreover, as per the order sheet entry, the assessee was asked to produce details when land in question was converted into non-agricultural land to prove his contention that the land in question w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant with M/s. Jaiprabhu Seeds and Ginning Factory would amount to transfer, the moment the other party is in the possession of the property and is able to enjoy such possession. In this case, the purpose of purchasing the property by M/s. Jaiprabhu Seeds and Ginning Factory was for construction of factory and which was not possible unless the land was converted into non-agricultural land. The buyer was thus in effective possession and enjoyment of the property only after November 27, 1995, when the appellant got the property converted into non-agricultural land. I, therefore, find that the transfer of property in accordance with the provisions of section 2(47) can be taken on November 28, 1995, when the buyer was not only in possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f appeal of the assessee is allowed. IT(SS)A No. 346/Ahd/2004: Now coming to the Revenue's appeal, the Revenue has raised the ground that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 46,375 under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment in purchase of agricultural land. The Revenue has raised the further ground that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in directing to withdraw the addition of Rs. 50,000 made on account of unexplained marriage expenses. At the outset, it is seen that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had allowed relief on account of unexplained relief. On enquiry from the Bench, the learned Departmental representative has fairly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to that, the limit was only Rs. 50,000 and the contention of the Revenue was that the new limit would not be applicable to the old references. The High Court rejected the said contention of the Revenue. In those circumstances, though the said High Court decision did not deal with the circular dated October 24, 2005, but it had dealt with the earlier circular and the limits of that circular were applied even to the cases which were prior to the old circular. Therefore, the ratio of that decision was applicable in the instant case as well. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has taken a policy decision not to file appeals in such type of cases and the circular is binding on the Revenue even to appeals filed before October 31, 2005, and the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Revenue before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. The Central Board of Direct Taxes' circular is there against making reference of a dispute involving less than Rs. 50,000, which is now raised to Rs. 1,00,000. In this view of the matter, we decline to answer the reference, leaving the questions involved in this reference to be decided in some other appropriate matter. This reference stands disposed of as aforesaid but without any order as to costs. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Tribunal." It is seen that the plea of the Revenue does not hold good in view of the decision of the hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of I.T.R. Nos. 69 of 1998 and 70 of 1998 dated February 24, 1999, which has been relied o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
