TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue records, these lands are agricultural lands but the only reason for not accepting the said contention is that the assessee has not carried on any agricultural operations. In the case of CIT vs. Smt. Debbie Alemao and 2.Joaquim Alemao, (2010 (9) TMI 560 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) has held that where the land is shown in revenue record as agricultural land and no permission was taken for conversion of land, it is immaterial whether any agricultural income is shown in the return or not, the gains from sale are exempt from taxation. The reason given by the AO for not accepting the assessee’s contention is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 843/Hyd/2017 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2018 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable for tax . 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed his original return of income on 11.10.2005 declaring taxable income at ₹ 30,32,380 which included the Capital Gain of ₹ 29,88,162. The AO had received the information that the assessee had sold properties and received the sale consideration of ₹ 44,12,500 and this information was compared with the information in the returned income filed by the assessee and it was noticed that the assessee has declared the sale consideration at ₹ 39,72,887 as against the actual sale consideration of ₹ 44,12,500. Therefore, the AO was of the opinion that there was escapement of income to the tune of ₹ 4,39,613 and accordingly the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not disclose any agricultural income from the land in those years. Therefore, the AO was not convinced with the assessee s contention that the land sold is agricultural land. Further, he has also observed that the assessee has purchased and sold several properties and had admitted the said activities as trading activity and has offered the profit as income from the business after claiming certain expenditure. Observing that the assessee has purchased land in Gundlapochampally Village in the year 2002 and sold in 2004 and has held the same for a period of just two years, and in the original return of income the assessee had admitted Short Term Capital Gains on sale of the said land, and only in the return filed in response to the notice u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) 331 ITR 59 (Bom.) 4. Further, he also submitted that the reopening of the assessment is itself bad in law because the assessee had declared the sale consideration at ₹ 44,12,500 and after reducing the interest on loans of ₹ 72,228 and the development charges of ₹ 3,67,385, the net amount only has been mentioned as sale consideration in the computation of income. He has drawn my attention to page 186 of paper book, which is a computation of income and page 190 of the paper book, which is the computation of short term capital gain on sale of land, to drive his point. Thus, according to him, the AO has formed an opinion without properly verifying the facts that there was an escapement of income when there was none. Fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not furnished any proof of carrying on of agricultural operations during the relevant A.Ys to hold it to be agricultural land. Therefore, he prayed that the assessment order be confirmed. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, I find that the first question that arises before me is whether there was any escapement of income requiring reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act. I find that in the computation of income, the assessee has taken the net figure after reducing the interest on loans and development charges and therefore, the assessee has actually taken the sale consideration at ₹ 44,12,500 only and there was no escapement of income in computation of the STCG. Therefore, in my opinion, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
