TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revious, present and future use to which the land is put and the intention of the assessees at the time of sale were also appreciated by the lower authorities - in the absence of any satisfactory evidence produced by the assessees to hold that the land was an agricultural land, the finding of the lower authorities cannot be disturbed. None of the assesses had declared any agricultural income even in the returns filed after the date of search and even though the assesses had admitted that the possession of the land was given in January, 2006, for the subsequent years also they showed agricultural income - This showed that the cash flow statements were without any basis - the land was used for conducting football tournament and they themse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri.Abdu Haji for the sale of the property mentioned above was seized. The agreement revealed that the property was agreed to be sold at a sale consideration of ₹ 3,27,500/- per cent and the aggregate sale consideration worked out ₹ 7,30,09,575/- which was to be paid within 1-1= years after measurement of the property. However, in the sale deeds that were executed in respect of the property, the sale consideration declared was only ₹ 99,95,000/-. 3. In view of the above, the assessing officer initiated proceedings against the assessees under Section 153C of the Act and accordingly notices were issued and the assessees filed returns of income, claiming exemption of capital gains arising on sale of the land on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd was rejected and capital gain was allocated in the hands of the assessees in proportion to the shares held by them. 5. All the assessees challenged the assessment orders by filing appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) held that the land sold by the assessees are not agricultural lands and therefore constitute capital asset in terms of Section 2 (14) of the Act. The CIT(A) found that the assesses received the sale consideration in instalments falling in the financial years relating to the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 and accordingly took the view that the transfer has to be considered as having taken place in the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 in proportion to the amount of sale consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about the comparative sale from the Sub Registrar's Office and also for the reason that the assesses did not furnish any other evidence to contradict the value determined, the First Appellate Authority upheld the rate of ₹ 100/- per cent determined by the Assessing Officer as the market value as on 01/4/1981. 8. Aggrieved by the orders of the assessing authority as confirmed by the appellate authority, the appeals were filed before the Appellate Tribunal which partly allowed the appeals by its impugned order. It is in these circumstances, the appellants have filed these appeals raising the following questions of law for consideration. 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed was that the finding that the land was not an agricultural land is incorrect and against the evidence on record. Answer to this question would determine whether the computation of long term capital gain and the consequent assessment of tax was legal or not. Therefore, we shall examine whether the finding of the lower authorities on this aspect was legal or not. 10. A reading of the orders passed itself would shows that the appellate authority applied the tests laid down by the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Siddharth J Desai (139 ITR 628) to determine whether the land is an agricultural land or not. Each of the tests laid down by the Gujarat High Court were applied and appreciating the evidence available before it, including the certifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was again examined in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards) (105 ITR 133) and considering the condition of the land and the intention of the owners and such other tests also, the lower authorities have concluded that the land is not an agricultural land. Therefore, in the absence of any satisfactory evidence produced by the assessees to hold that the land in question was an agricultural land, the finding of the lower authorities cannot be disturbed. 12. Admittedly, none of the assesses had declared any agricultural income even in the returns filed after the date of search and even though the assesses had admitted that the possession of the land was given in January, 2006, for the subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
