TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided under section 2(14) of the Act. In our considered opinion, the test applied by the AO is not correct. It is for the AO to ascertain as to whether the land sold by the assessee is an agricultural land as per revenue records, the assessee has carried agricultural operation or not and it is not for the Assessing Officer to see to whom the land was sold. One more reason stated in the assessment order that subsequent to the sale, the land was converted into non-agricultural purposes and thereby, the claim of the assessee was denied. Vide order Revenue Divisional Officer has accorded permission for conversion of the agricultural land into non-agriculture purposes, which means, before sale of the land, the land was an agricultural land. Moreover, as per the certificate of the Village Revenue Officer, the assessee was carrying out agricultural operation. Therefore, the AO was not correct in denying the benefit. The observation of the AO that the sale consideration of ₹.1.98 crores for 11 acres is abnormal. The assessee sold his land in acre and it comes to near about ₹.18,00,000/- per acre is, in our opinion, not abnormal. The assessee wanted to sale his land and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has furnished Village Revenue Officer s certificate dated 30.07.2012, certifying that the said land is situated beyond 8 kms from municipal limits and that the assessee and his wife (co-owner of the impugned land) were carrying on agricultural activity in the said land. 2.1 The Assessing Officer has noted that as per the recitals in the sale deed, the aforesaid lands come to be held by the assessee and his wife through Document No. 12, Book No. 3 dated 14.11.2007. The said land has been sold on 07.05.2009, which shows that the assessee did not carry out any agricultural activity even for 3 years and also sold the land for non agricultural purposes. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the gains arising from the sale of land would be assessable to tax as capital gains. The AR of the assessee filed a letter dated 29.02.2016 and submitted that the assessee s family was holding the agricultural land from 1957 onwards and the said land was transferred to the assessee and to his wife by the assessee s mother Mrs. Sarmishta through a Release Deed No. 12/2009 dated 14.11.2007 and therefore the period of holding of the said land is from 1957 onwards and not from 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rought to tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), more or less expressed the same view and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that as per the revenue records, the land is an agricultural land and the assessee was carrying agricultural operation and whatever amount is generated out of agricultural operation were utilized for personal consumption and thee was nothing left over income for offering for taxation. Therefore, on the ground of no agricultural income was offered for taxation cannot be considered the land is not an agricultural land and the assessee has not carried out agricultural operation. He has pointed out by referring to the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor dated 31.12.2009, wherein, the RDO has granted permission to convert the agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose subject to certain condition. He also filed a letter issued by the Village Revenue Officer dated 20.07.2012, wherein he has stated that the assessee is carrying the agricultural activities and subsequently sold it to Shree Krishna Polystrap P. Ltd. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unicipality, Chittoor district was 18 kms approximately. It was also mentioned in the report that the said land was surrounded by a sugar factory and its quarters on north side, on the east side, Nagiri Nagalapuram road was separating a local milk diary and the land, on the west side, a land belongs to Ms. A. Preethi using for agricultural activity and on the south side, a land with unwanted crops belongs to Eskay Agro Tech Ltd., and other than the sugar factory, there was no other industry can be seen near the said land. 7. From the above report that the sugar factory is situated nearer to assessee s land as there is sizeable agricultural activities are carried out and it is clear that it is an agricultural belt as sugar mill was established. Therefore, it cannot be said that the land is not an agricultural land. 7.1 The Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the land sold to a company was not carrying agricultural operation and therefore, the case of the assessee does not fall under the exception provided under section 2(14) of the Act. In our considered opinion, the test applied by the Assessing Officer is not correct. It is for the Assessing Officer to ascertain as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
