9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the business premises of M/s.Concrete Developers, Nagpur and residential premises of its Director. Several books of account and documents were seized. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 17092010 along with detailed questionnaire seeking in explanation and details from the assessee on specific seizure materials. The assessee had, in response, filed its return of Income on 23042010 for total income of Rs. 3,30,450. The assessee had, in regular income, shown the same income. It was noticed that the assesee had, along with three partners namely Shri Sanjay Nagorao Padwalkar, Shankarrao Jairanmji Diote, Shishir Shankarrao Diote, on 10.04.2007, purchased the land Patwari Halka No. 38, bearing Survey No. 90/1 for a consideration of Rs. 29,40,420/ and the same was sold on 15042008 for Rs. 80,00,000/ on 15042008 with proportionate share of each partner as Rs. 20,00,000/. Thus, the profit of Rs. 12,64,895/ was claimed as exempt on the ground that the land sold was agricultural land and not a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oach road while the Assessing Officer has taken the aerial distance and accordingly, held that the land sold by the assessee is a capital asset as being situated within 8 kms. of the Municipal Limit. 7. In Laukik Developers Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported at (2007) 108 TTJ (Mumbai) 364, the ITAT, Mumbai Bench held that the distance has to be measured for the purpose of Section 80-IB (10) as per road distance and not as per straight line. He submitted that when there are two views, the view that is favourable to the assessee ought to be preferred. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shabbir Hussain Pithawala (2014) 98 DTR (MP) 62 in case of the agricultural land within meaning of Section 2(14)(iii)(b), the distance has to be measured in terms of approach road and not by the straight line method on horizontal plane. The Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Debbie Alemao (2011) 239 CTR (Bom) 326 considered the fact that an agricultural land shown in the revenue records and when no any permission was sought for nonagricultural use by the assessee, the distance has to be measured by the approach road. The nature of the land whether agricult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd our concurrence with the above view as it is just and reasonable. Income Tax exemptions for agricultural income are bound to promote agriculture in the country. It is in our National interest to meet the increasing needs of foodstuffs for growing population and would serve the interest of justice. Agricultural lands are already subjected to land revenues and other local taxes need not be overburdened. The revenue can tap other alternative resources to meet the revenue requirements. 11. Another submission of learned Advocate Shri Dewani is that any amendment to a taxing statute is intended to remove any hardship caused to taxpayers and not to the tax department. When two views are available to interpreter of the provision of the taxing Statute, the interpretation which is in favour of the subject ought to be preferred. 12. We have carefully considered and applied our mind to the rival submissions and the rulings cited at the bar. We agree with the submission that the amendments in the taxing statute, unless a different legislative intention is clearly expressed, shall operate prospectively. In our view, if the assessee has earned business income and not the agricultural i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e question which was raised was answered by the Delhi Court in paragraph 9 of the ruling under consideration, which reads thus : ".......This Court further held that in other words the agricultural lands purchased originally by the assessee for urbanisation or conversion into building plots remained agricultural land till the acquisition and payment of compensation, and in view of the said finding this Court held that the first question has to be answered in the negative, i.e. the profits were not business profits. With regard to the second question this Court found that as the compensation had been paid for the acquisition of agricultural land, the question really involved a determination as to whether the price paid for the land by way of compensation could be included within the definition of agricultural income. It was further held that agricultural land was excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' occurring in s. 2(14)(iii) and accordingly any gain resulting from the acquisition of agricultural land was not income, and accordingly the answer to the said question was that the compensation amount was not income." 14. Thus, the income out of transactions of immov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
