9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. A common issue is involved in all these three appeals, and, therefore they were heard together through the virtual hearing set-up of the Tribunal on an application by the assessee and no-objection from the Department. They are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that a Maruti-Zen car bearing registration No. HR-20N-3810 en route from Hisar to Delhi was apprehended by the police in Rohtak on 6.8.2011. It was found that one of the assessees, Shri Ghanshyam Dass Ghirayia and his brother, travelling in the vehicle were in possession of Rs. 85 lacs in cash. The police confiscated the cash of Rs. 85 lacs which was thereafter seized by the Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the hands of Smt. Usha Devi and Smt. Urmilla Ghanshyam Dass Ghiraiya. Now the three assessees have approached this Tribunal challenging the action of the Ld. CIT (A). 3.0 Numerous grounds have been raised by the assessees in all the three appeals but at the outset the Ld. AR has submitted that ground No. 2 in all the three appeals was identical and was germane to the entire issue and that if relief was allowed to the assessee/s by allowing this ground, all other grounds would become academic in nature. The Ld. CIT (DR) agreed to the prayer of the Ld. AR and, therefore, with the consent of both the authorities, we are taking up ground No. 2 in the appeal of Shri Ghanshyam Dass Ghirayia first for our consideration. Ground No. 2 reads as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that what is in dispute is whether the land in question was agricultural land or not. It was submitted that while holding that the land in question was not an agricultural land, the lower authorities, especially the Ld. CIT (A), have acted on mere surmises and conjectures. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has stated that the land in question was not mentioned as 'agricultural land' in the purchase deed dated 15.4.2008 but it has been ignored that the tax authorities were duly accepting the agricultural income as shown by the two assessees i.e. Smt. Usha Devi and Smt. Urmilla Ghiraiya in their returns of income. It was submitted that, therefore, if the agricultural income had been accepted in earlier years, the department canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y wrong in mentioning that the notification has not been filed. Apart from this, the Ld. AR also submitted that there was a certificate of the Tehsildar on record which showed that the land in question was outside 8 kms from the municipal limits. It was also submitted that the copy of Khasra and Khatauni, already on record, also showed that the land in question was agricultural land. It was submitted that, thus, the land was shown as agricultural land in the revenue records and that even if the land used was changed by the purchaser/s at a later date, the same was not done at the behest of the assessee. The Ld. AR reiterated that all these documents had been duly filed before the lower authorities and that the Ld. CIT (A) had completely ov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch, both the parties agreed that they have been heard satisfactorily and that the hearing may be closed. 7.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. The sole question for our consideration is whether the land in question is agricultural land or not. In this regard it is seen that the assessees have filed certificate from the Tehsildar and copies of Khasra and Khatauni in support of their claim that the land in question was agricultural. The certificate of the Tehsildar shows that the land under consideration was outside 8 kms of the municipal limit. Copy of the Khasra and Khatauni shows that the land in question is agricultural in nature. The sale deed also mentions that the land sold is agricult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dras High Court in the case of M.S. Srinivasa Naicker vs. ITO reported in 292 ITR 481 (Madras) has held that where the agricultural operations were carried out on land till the date of sale and the land was registered as agricultural land in revenue records, the fact that the purchaser was going to use land for non-agricultural purposes was not relevant and, therefore, the gains on the sale of land would be exempt from capital gains tax. On the other hand, the Department has not brought on record any document which would controvert the certificate of the Tehsildar and moreover the copies of Khasra and Khatuani being part of the Revenue records of the State have an over-riding evidentiary value which cannot be simply ignored without there be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
