TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rk on the land in question. Further, the A.O. would also consider contention of the assessee that there was a typographical error in the accounts of the assessee. Assessee's appeal allowed for statistical purposes - ITA No.336/Ind/2015 - - - Dated:- 2-1-2019 - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Anil Kamal Garg And Arpit Gour, CAs. For the Revenue : Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT-DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore, dated 31.03.2015pertaining to the A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Grounds of Income-Tax Appeal before the Hon'ble Income-Tax Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estigation on certain issues in respect of which the Assessing Officer passing the Order had already formed certain opinion after proper application of mind. 4. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT grossly erred in not considering the settled position of law fact that there is no embargo in the scheme of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 that one assessee can simultaneously be an investor and as also a trader in real estate. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that in this case the assessment was completed by the assessing officer vide order dated 22.03.2013 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) assessing total income of ₹ 9,02,74,441/-. Subsequently, the Ld. CIT(A) after examining the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfactory hence he revised the assessment order by setting aside the assessment order for framing assessment orders, afresh in the light of the observations made in the impugned order. Against this the assessee is in present appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the impugned order is unjustified and is contrary to law. Ld. Counsel submitted there is no embargo under the law for keeping two portfolio. He submitted that merely because the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate would not prevent him from keeping part of land as investment. Ld. Counsel laid great emphasis on submission that this part of land was kept for establishing a project of water park but due to paucity of water this idea w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration of Rs.l,4 7,76,9701- [including registration cost] during the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2009-10 and out of such purchases, it had sold agricultural land admeasuring 8.099 hectares in the same financial year i.e. the financial year relevant to A.Y. 2009-10. It has been claimed by the appellant that remaining 8.683 hectares agricultural land was sold by it during the previous year relevant to A. Y. 2010-11 and surplus arising on such sale was treated by it as capital receipts. Since the land was not falling within the definition of the expression 'capital assets' under s.2(l4) of the Act being out of the prescribed limit of the municipal limit, the entire capital receipt was claimed as exempted. It has also been clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-2012 [placed at page no.35 of the Paper Book], asked the appellant to furnish the justification of the profit on sale of land at ₹ 9,91,89,750/- shown in the Profit Loss Account. In response to such query, the appellant, vide its counsel's letter dated 03-01-2013 [Page No. 52 of Paper book], furnished the complete details. It was explicitly made clear that out of the profit of ₹ 9,91,89,750/- shown in the Profit Loss Account, ₹ 5,41,34,250/- was a business profit and a sum of ₹ 3,74,09,902/- was claimed as surplus on sale of agricultural land held as investment. It was also specifically mentioned that the remaining sum of ₹ 76,45,598/- was the prior period profit, being capital gain, on sale of agricult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if he is satisfied that the order passed is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the present case, Ld. CIT has revised the concluded assessment by setting aside assessment to the A.O. for de-novo assessment. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee can have two portfolios, one is in the nature of investment, another being business. The assessee is engaged in business of real estate. The Ld. CIT in the impugned order has observed that the sale of land in the same locality is treated as the business receipts. However, in respect of the land in question, the assessee has claimed it as an investment. Further, the assessee claimed it as exempt being an agricultural land. In the opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
