TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts of the case, we observe that the land was converted into non-agricultural for the purpose of sale and therefore at the time of sale, the land was non-agricultural land. In view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court referred to above in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohd. Ibrahim and also the decision in the case of Shaileshbhai [ 2022 (4) TMI 674 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in disallowing the assessee s claim of capital gains tax exemption on sale of the above land. Allowability of the cost of acquisition - Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Shaileshbhai [ 2022 (4) TMI 674 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] held that the assessee is entitled deduction of cost of acquisition of the capital asset against the full value of consideration from the transfer of capital asset. The cost of acquisition cannot be treated as Nil merely on the reason that the assessee has not furnished any details for the same. Thus we are restoring the file to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate on the limited point of determining the cost of acquisition, keeping in view the evidence that the assessee may file in support of deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act declaring the income on sale of such land as exempt and also claimed the agricultural income of ₹ 1,02,641/- as exempt. Since the assessee has claimed sale of agricultural as exempt, he did not mention the cost of acquisition of such land in the return of income. In the assessment, the AO observed that the purchasers of the land have mentioned in the sale deed that this land is purchased for the purpose of construction of residential houses/flats. Thus, there was an intention of the assessee that he would not use the land for agricultural purposes. Moreover, the agricultural income has not been substantiated by furnishing the copies of sale bills of the agricultural produce and no proof of incurring any expenses for getting the crops ready for selling in the market have been produced. Therefore, looking into the totality of facts, the AO disallowed assessee s claim for exemption of capital gains on the ground that the land was admittedly non-agricultural at the time of sale. Further, since the assessee has not given any details of cost of acquisition and the date of acquisition by the forefathers, the acquisition of said land is taken at Nil in the hands of assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the appellant's arguments in respect of the distance between the land and the closest municipal corporation or the fact that no construction activity had started on the land on the date of sale, do not hold any merit. In view of the detailed discussion above, I am of the considered opinion that as the said land was not an agricultural land and had been converted into NA land in the year prior to the year of sale itself, the same cannot be claimed as exempt by the appellant and was correctly held liable for capital gains tax by the AO. In view of the same, the addition of Rs.50,51,000/- is confirmed. As regards the claim of the appellant that the AO had erred in law by taking the cost of acquisition as nil, as the appellant has failed to provide the relevant details in this regard even during the course of remand proceedings as well as the appellate proceedings, I am constrained to uphold the decision of the assessing officer. Thus, this ground of appeal is also rejected. Ground of appeal nos. 1 2 are confirmed. 5. Before us, the counsel for the assessee reiterated the arguments made before Ld. CIT(Appeals) in appeal proceedings. The counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of transfer, the land was not an agricultural land and the same was transferred for the purpose of residential project, the assessee is not entitled for claiming that the land is agricultural land so as to get out of the purview of provision of capital gains tax. In the present facts of the case, we observe that the land was converted into non-agricultural for the purpose of sale and therefore at the time of sale, the land was non-agricultural land. In view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court referred to above in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohd. Ibrahim v CIT 204 ITR 631 (SC) and also the decision of the Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Shaileshbhai v ITO in ITA number 581/Ahmedabad/2019 , we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in disallowing the assessee s claim of capital gains tax exemption on sale of the above land. 6.1 So far as the allowability of the cost of acquisition is concerned, Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Shaileshbhai v ITO in ITA number 581/Ahmedabad/2019 , held that the assessee is entitled deduction of cost of acquisition of the capital asset against the full value of consideration fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
