TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or The Assessee : Shri R.B.Doshi, AR For The Revenue : Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR ORDER Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM These are appeals filed by the assessee against different orders of the CIT(A)-1, Raipur in Appeal No.CIT(A)/RPR/A No. 97/15-16/2016-17 dated 24.2.2017 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Appeal No.CIT(A)/RPR/A No. 129/2013-14 dated 18.12.2015 for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. Since the issue in both the appeals are similar, for the sake of convenience, they were heard together and are disposed off by the consolidated order and we take the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 and facts narrated therein for our adjudication and our decision will apply mutatis-mutandis to the assessment year 2010-2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -08 for ₹ 1,47,81,250/- and received additional compensation and disclosed long term capital gains of ₹ 1,37,13,854/- on sale of agricultural land and claimed as exempt u/s.2(14) of the Act and the Assessing Officer reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s.148 of the Act and assessee filed letter on 5.8.2013 to treat the return of income filed earlier in compliance to reassessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer also issued notice u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and the parties were heard. In support of the claim that the land is agricultural land, the assessee filed copy of certificate dated 24.9.2008 issued by Dy. Manager(Lan), NRDA, Raipur and also copy of certificate dated 20.2.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directions of municipal limits of Raipur and the municipal limits of Raipur extend to more than 10 kms towards Aarang and observed that the land is situated in Chhatona village within the purview of Raipur district and the municipal limits need to be considered within municipal limits of Raipur and placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble P H High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Anjana Sehgal, 133 Taxmann 712 and further observed that the decision in the case of P.J.Thomas (supra) is distinguishable on facts. With these above observations, the Assessing officer is of the opinion that the assessee is not entitled for exemption of the capital gains claimed at ₹ 1,37,72,502/- and assessed the total income at ₹ 1,84,35,350/- an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ital asset and denied exemption to the assessee. 8. Ld D.R. submitted that the assessee has not carried out any agricultural operations and no proof was submitted, the Assessing Officer has correctly relied on the judicial decision of and observed that the assessee has not explained the nature of income and ld D.R. relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and vehemently objected to the submission of ld A.R. 9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record , orders of lower authorities and the paper book filed before the Tribunal. Ld A.R. submitted his arguments in the paper book alongwith copy of land pass book to substantiate the holding of the land by the assessee and drew attention to page 103 of PB, where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om Government is not dispute. 11. We support our view based on the decision of the ITAT, Nagpur in the case of Sanjay Ngorao Paidelwar vs ACIT in ITA No.112/Ng/2012 dated 22.3.2013 on similar facts has, inter alia, held as under: 16. Regarding the issue in regard to whether the sale consideration out of agricultural income is assessable as business income or not, once we have held that this was an agricultural land and, therefore, any consideration out of sale of agricultural land, which is not assessable as the land was situated beyond 8 kms., therefore, the direction of the learned CIT(A) that the surplus may be treated as business income, has become now meaningless. Even and otherwise, this issue is also decided by various High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
