TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessment order in the case of assessee s wife Smt Seema Shroff and the coowner passed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 14.03.2014 accepting the claim on sale of agricultural land remains undisturbed. This being so, clearly the reopening being on change of opinion, the same is unsustainable and consequently quashed. Deduction u/s.54F - What has been sold by assessee is only agricultural land in so far as the sale deed was executed on 18.01.2011 whereas the said Uthandi village has come within the Corporation limit by virtue of the Government Order No.97 dated 19.07.2011 as has already been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case Shri N. K. V. Krishna referred to supra. In respect of an alternate claim of assessee that the assessee has also alternatively eligible of deduction u/s.54F. Admittedly, the certificate issued by Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation clearly shows that the location of the building is in primary residential zone as per CMDA land use map and the building plan has been sanctioned for residential purpose only. Obviously, the Executive Engineer, Zonal Office, Greater Chennai Corporation is a competent person to decide on the location ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time of original assessment with reference to income alleged to have escaped assessment and that the assessment cannot be validly reopened under Section 147 of the Act, even within four year merely on the basis ofchange of opinion. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the levy of capital gains tax on sale of land at Uttandi which is classified as agricultural land by the revenue department and as per the deed of purchase made by the appellant. 8. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the impugned land at Uttandi is classified as agricultural lands as per revenue records and is located 8 kms away from the nearest municipal limits or corporation and that the appellant has also carried on agricultural activity . The learned CIT(A) failed to see that the appellant had claimed the income from the sale of said land as exempt since the same is not a capital asset as per the provisions of section 2(14) (iii) of the Income tax Act. 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in disallowing the alternate claim made by the appellant under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the appellant had invested the entire sale proceeds for pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein the claim of agricultural land had been accepted. The ld.A.R drew our attention to pages 101 to103 of Paper book relating to assessment order of Seema Shroff. It was a submission that the claim in respect of sale of agricultural land in the assessee s wife case had not been disturbed. It was a submission that on the basis of Gazettee Notification shown at pages 105 to 115 of the paper book, the ld. Assessing Officer had drawn a conclusion that the property sold was within the Chennai City Municipality Corporation and consequently, it would not be treated as agricultural land. Ld.A.R drew our attention to page No.105 to submit that the said Gazettee Notification was in respect of the proposal for inclusion of certain areas within the Chennai City Limits and the territorial division was to be done for next ordinary election to be held. It was a submission that the actual notification came only on 19.07.2011 much after the sale by the assessee. The ld.A.R also placed before us copy of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri N.K.V.Krishna,Chennai in Ita No.1642 1615/Mds./2012 for assessment year 2009-10 vide order dated 26.09.2013 wherein the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouse property at pages 117 to 139 of the Paper book. It was the submission that the purchase document also specified the property as house in the schedule. It was a submission that just because property has been subsequently used for commercial purpose, would not disentitle the assessee to the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act. 5. In reply, the ld.D.R vehemently supported the Ld.CIT(A). It was submitted by ld.D.R that Gazettee Notification clearly showed the land sold to fall within the city corporation limit as on 09.11.2010. It was a submission that the sale having taken placed on 18.01.2011, the property sold cannot be treated as agricultural land. It was a submission that the Tribunal had wrongly interpreted the Gazettee Notification in the case of shri N.K.V.Krishna referred to supra. It was a submission that benefit of deduction u/s.54F cannot be granted to the assessee in so far as the property was a commercial property. It was a submission that the order of the CIT(Appeals) was liable to be upheld. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the letter of assessee addressed to ld. Assessing Officer dated 06.01.2014 explaining the sale of the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
