TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellants. Further the Tribunal has found that the responsibility to substantiate the purchase consideration was on the appellants and appellants have not adduced any evidence or put forth any material to substantiate the case advanced by them and therefore, the claim of the appellants that they were entitled to seek reckoning of the amount allegedly paid by them when they effected purchase of the property cannot be considered to be real at all. The Appellate Tribunal has thereupon declined to interfere with the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority. The circumstances which led to the addition of amounts in the assessment order was based fully upon the facts unearthed during the search operations at the residence of one Pavunni. Further the authorities below have found that there was no evidence at all to prove that while the property was conveyed by executing sale deed, the same was an agricultural land. But on the other hand, the assessing officer has clearly found that the property in question was barren land and further it was revealed that after purchase of the property, no agricultural operations were carried on by the appellants and further that the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed that the transaction was effected at the rate of ₹ 25,000/- per cent. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer determined the sale consideration of the land by adopting ₹ 25,000/- per cent. 5. The Assessing Authority has arrived at such a finding after overruling the objections raised by the appellants that the property sold was an agricultural land and hence the profit arising on its sale is exempted from payment of tax. The Assessing Authority found that the appellants did not carry out any agricultural operations and further that the land was sold within a short period of its purchase. Apart from the same, the appellant in ITA No.125 of 2014 had confirmed that he did not carry on any agricultural activity on the said land. Added to this, the Assessing Authority has found that the nature of the property at the time of registration was converted into a barren land by removal of earth upto the rock bottom. Accordingly the Assessing Authority took the view that the transactions can only be considered as an adventure in the nature of trade and accordingly after providing sufficient opportunity to the appellants and complying with the procedures, finalised the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reements for sale of the said property, the prospective purchasers were put in possession and they were permitted to cut and remove the rubber trees and to remove soil from the said property. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assesses are entitled to get the benefit of tax exemption provided under the provisions of the Act, treating it as agricultural property. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that in view of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and the agreement executed by the appellants with the prospective purchasers who were put in possession of the property and were allowed to carry out slaughter taping, cutting and removal of rubber trees and to remove soil from the property, there is substantial proof to show that the property transferred by the appellant was an agricultural property and that therefore he is not liable to pay any tax under the Act. 12. As stated earlier, appeals are relating to the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. To answer the above contention of the appellants, we think it only appropriate to refer to sub-section 1A of Section 17 of the Registration Act, which is extracted hereunder: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a short period of its purchase, it was clear that the appellants carried out adventure in the nature of trade and therefore, the profit derived from such sale is liable to be assessed under the Act. 15. The learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue also contended that the Assessing Authority could unearth the actual sale price from the agreement seized on search from aforesaid Pavunni and thereby the assessing authority could ascertain the tax evaded by the appellants truly and correctly. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that there is no proof to establish that the appellants have paid the purchase price of ₹ 10,250/- and ₹ 10,500/- respectively per cent for the property against the documented value of ₹ 1,000/- per cent and therefore, the Assessing Authority was right in holding so in the order of assessment which was confirmed by the authorities below. 16. Taking into account the rival contentions of the learned counsels, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellate Tribunal has discussed the entire issues put forth by the appellants and has arrived at a reasonable conclusion that the basis for adoption of sales price of ₹ 25,000/- per cent wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
