TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26.10.2005 and based on the material found at the time of search, assessee was required to furnish information regarding various issues. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had sold a property in the relevant previous year for a consideration of Rs. 1,16,57,500/-. The said property was located at Kanathur, Village Reddykuppam. Submission of the assessee was that it was agricultural land and therefore, gains of Rs. 1,14,78,958/- arising on sale was exempt. However, as per the A.O., assessee could not furnish details of agricultural operations done by way of evidence for purchase of seeds, fertilizers, insecticides, etc. nor could it produce records for any sale proceeds and yield. Again, as per the A.O., nature of crops cultivated, nature of irrigation facilities and details of agricultural income-tax paid were also not furnished by the assessee. He, therefore, came to a conclusion that assessee had not put the land for agricultural use and therefore, the gains arising from sale could not be considered as exempt. He worked out the capital gains arising out of transfer as Rs. 1,11,41,597/- and made addition of that amount in the assessment. 3. In its appeal before ld. CIT(Appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O., assessee could not discharge the burden of proof resting on it for showing that the land was agricultural. 4. Report of the A.O. was put to the assesse. Reply of the assessee was that Tehsildar's report sent to the A.O. on 7.6.2010 clearly stated that assessee was doing casuarina cultivation during the period from 2001 to 2004 and 1999 to 2000. Again as per the assessee, the same report also clearly mentioned that ground water was used for irrigating the land. Assessee also submitted before ld. CIT(Appeals) a letter dated 9.9.2010 of reference No.Dis.5818/2010 AI from Tehsildar as per which, the land was situated within the village panchayat limit. Based on the above submissions, ld. CIT(Appeals) came to a conclusion that there was enough evidence to the effect that the land was agricultural in nature. According to him, there was no record to show that the character of land had undergone any change till the date of its transfer. Ld. CIT(Appeals) also noted that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. K.E. Sundara Mudiliar & Others (18 ITR 259) had held that income derived from casuarina plantations were agricultural in nature. According to him, the tests that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Insofar as notice for Urban Land Tax placed at paper-book page 32 was concerned, learned A.R. submitted that the proceeding in this regard was dropped by competent authority. Relying on a letter of Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Ceiling), Alandur, Chennai, dated 3.4.1997 placed at paper-book pages 35 and 36, he submitted that the land was found by the said authority to be agricultural in nature. According to him, just because assessee could not produce proof for casuarina plantations on the land, it could not be said that the land was non-agricultural, especially when various authorities had certified the presence of casuarina plantations in the concerned land and also its agricultural nature. According to him, ld. CIT(Appeals) had properly appreciated the evidence and concluded that the land was agricultural in nature. 7. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. There is no dispute that the land concerned was not situated within the jurisdiction of a Municipality, Municipal Corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee or a cantonment board which had a population not less than 10,000 according to last preceding census. There ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r proceedings could be dropped. 3. On 31.1.1997, the undersigned inspected the subject land and found that the same is encompassed by compound walls on Northern, Southern and Western sides. Also, saplings of Casuarinas aged about 01 year are seen growing there. There is no building and well on this land. 4. The provisions of Tamilnadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978 is extended to Kanathur Reddy Kuppan village with effect from 09.08.1995. As per the copies of Adangal, other records and site inspection, it is clear that the subject land's category is not changed by remaining as Agricultural land continuously. Page No.2 Under the provisions of Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, subject land has been levied with urban land tax for the Fasli Year 1396 vide Taxation No. 6/1396 dated 26.12.1994 and for the Fasli year 1401 vide Taxation No. 101/1401 dated 26.12.1994. Without prejudice to these taxations, the proceedings taken under Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978 is being dropped u/s 7(2) of the Act henceforth." The above letter clearly shows that the land had cultivation of casuarina plants therein and as per the Tehsildar, the land was agricultural in nature. Assistant Com....