9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ite of documentary evidence available on record. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the assessing officer did not take the fact into consideration that the land was situated beyond 8 kms from urban municipality and considering the nature of the land it cannot be treated as business asset and cannot be treated as business profit. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the assessing officer erred in appreciation of relevant facts in the process of arriving at a conclusion that the sale of land by the assessee was a trading activity. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have taken facts and circumstances of the relevant transaction and ought to have held that the profit earned by the assessee does not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ricultural land and that it was situated beyond 8 kms from the Municipal limits and therefore, the profit on sale of land is not taxable, though the same was initially offered to tax in the original returns filed. The AO therefore, asked the assessee to produce necessary proof in support of his claim that the land sold is agricultural land and was used for agricultural activities till the date of sale. The assessee was also asked to produce the Pattadar Pass Book for the year 2003-04 and details relating to the agricultural income earned during the A.Ys 2003-04 and 2004-05. In response to the same, the assessee submitted the copy of the pahanis as well as the pattedar pass book but did not furnish the details relating to the agricultural op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re under various heads but since the assessee did not produce any evidence in support of such expenditure, the AO disallowed 50% of the same and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee, reiterated the submissions made by the assessee, before the authorities below and submitted that the land, being agricultural land, is evident from both the pattedar pass books as well as the pahanis and hence the assessee's claim should have been allowed. He placed reliance upon the following two decisions in support of his contentions: i) Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t suo moto change the head of income without issuing a notice to the assessee. Without prejudice to this argument, he submitted that the AO ought to have allowed the entire expenditure incurred in the process for agricultural operations for arriving at the profit liable for tax. 5. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee, by himself had offered the Short Term Capital Gain on sale of land in his original return of income and therefore, he cannot change his stand in the re-assessment proceedings in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. He submitted that it is not the assessee who has filed the revised returns of income voluntarily, but the return is filed in respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
