TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grown paddy from 2001 to 2004 and for this produced a copy of the adangal record for S.No.255 256 issued by the Tehsildar office, Solinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist. The assessee s land is agricultural land and he has cultivated till 2004 but sold this land in 2005. Even otherwise the AO has considered all these documents and formed an opinion that the land sold is agricultural land. Now, the PCIT want to review the order on same set of facts, which according to us is not permissible under law. The AO has taken one view and that is the only permissible view in view of the above given facts that the land sold by assessee is agricultural land and we find no error in the assessment order or prejudicial in the assessment order to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such other grounds which may be adduced at the time of hearing the Appellant praise the Hon ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to intervene, cancel the order u/s 263 and render justice. 3. Despite service of notice, none is present from assessee s side. However, Revenue is represented by ld. Senior DR. This matter travelled up to Hon ble High Court and the Hon ble High Court in T.C.(A) No.938 of 2019 and CMP No.24840 of 2019 vide order dated 09.07.2020 has directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal of assessee afresh after considering the material placed by assessee on the assessment record. The Hon ble High Court directions in para 6 7 reads as under:- 6. The Assessee has filed the copies of the revenue records in the typedset of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs. Brief facts of the case are that original assessment was completed by the ITO u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 11.02.2014. The assessee during the relevant year under consideration sold two properties i.e., land for an amount of Rs.1.01 crores and Rs.97.6 lakhs registered vide document Nos.3733/2005 and 5569/2005 with SRO, Neelankarai. The assessee during the course of original assessment proceedings before the AO claimed that the said land sold were agricultural lands and hence, does not fall under the definition of capital asset in term of section 2(14) of the Act. The AO required the assessee to file the details during original assessment proceedings, which we obtained from ld. Senior DR and from the assessment recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the body of the revision order after providing due opportunity to the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Senior DR now before us stated that the assessee vide letter dated 24.11.2016 submitted the extract of Revenue records pertaining to Fasli years 1411, 1412 1413 which stated that during the relevant period paddy was cultivated in the impugned land. The relevant Fasli year corresponding to two dates of transactions are as under:- 26.06.2005 - Fasli year 1414 (01.07.2004 to 30.06.2005) 25.09.2005 - Fasli year 1415 (01.07.2005 to 30.06.2006) The ld. Senior DR stated that in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal record for S.No.255 256 issued by the Tehsildar office, Solinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist for the following fasli years:- Fasli Year English Calendar year Crop cultivated 1411 July 2001 to June 2002 Paddy 1412 July 2002 to June 2003 Paddy 1413 July 2003 to June 2004 Paddy From the above, it is clear that the assessee s land is agricultural land and he has cultivated till 2004 but sold this land in 2005. Even otherwise the AO has considered all these documents and formed an opinion that the land sold is agric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
