TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceeds of the land as exempt from capital gains tax. The Assessing Officer made enquiries about the location, nature etc., of the land and came to the conclusion that the land is non-agricultural. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 05-01-2010. After taking into consideration the documents filed by the assessee as well as the submissions of the AR of the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that the land sold by the assessee at Iyyappanthangal Panchayat of Sriperumbudur taluk, Kancheepuram District cannot be classified as agricultural land and thus the gains arising from the sale of the land is assessable under the head 'Capital Gains'. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 12,23,82,098/- as Long Term Capital Gains. 3. Aggrieved against the Assessment Order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) following the order of the Tribunal in the case of assessee's husband in ITA No. 1581/Mds/2010 relevant to the AY. 2007-08 titled as DCIT Vs. Shri P. Ashok Kumar decided on 20-01-2011, held the land to be agricultural. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee had inter alia impugned the assessment order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in-charge (Court of Wards) reported as 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv. Fazalbhoy Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT (1989) reported as 176 ITR 523 (Bom); v. Gopal C. Sharma Vs. CIT reported as 209 ITR 946 (Bom); vi. ITA No. 2118/Mds/2012 ACIT Vs. Subramaniam Vadivel, decided on 20-02-2013; vii. ITA No. 794/Mds/2011 M/s. Pallava Resorts P. Ltd., Vs. DCIT decided on 11-10-2012; & viii. ITA No. 2164/Mds/2012 ACIT Vs. Smt. Sakunthala Vedachalam decided on 11-04-2013. 5. The ld. DR submitted that the case of the assessee is distinguishable from the case of her husband Shri P. Ashok Kumar, wherein the Tribunal has held that the land of the assessee is agricultural in nature. The points of distinction which were highlighted by the DR were as under: i) Shri P. Ashok Kumar has shown his agricultural income in his income tax return where as assessee has not disclosed her income from agriculture in any of the AYs except in the AY. 2007-08 which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The CIT has confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer which has not been challenged by the assessee; ii) The husband of the assessee was growing coconut and he has produced evidence before the Assessing Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5 & 6 of the assessment order to show that documentary evidence was furnished before the Assessing Officer to substantiate the claim of the assessee that the land in question is an agricultural land. It was mentioned before the Assessing Officer that although there was no major agricultural operation in the land but the land was always under cultivation and the residual income if any, was passed on to the assessee after meeting the expenditure of the care taker. The said income has been reflected in the Book of Accounts and returns for the respective assessment years. The Counsel for the assessee made a statement at the bar that the care taker Mr. Murugan who was employed by the husband of the assessee was also care taker of the agricultural land of the assessee and in the Income-tax returns, the assessee has been disclosing income from agricultural activities. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the distinctions created by the DR are merely farce. The case of the assessee is identical to the case of Shri P. Ashok Kumar, husband of the assessee. 8. We have heard the submissions made by the rival parties and have perused the orders of the authorities below as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee had purchased 2.14 acres of agricultural land from one Shree Harikrishna Brick Works, Chennai, vide sale deed dated 27.9.1994 for a total consideration of Rs. 8,10,000/-. This land was subsequently sold to a company by the name Estra IT Park Pvt. Ltd, for a total consideration of Rs. 12,42,00,000/-, vide sale deed dated 24.1.2007. In the sale deed, it is mentioned in para 3 that the assessee is compelled to sell the property as at present it is not fetching any income. The issue involved before us is as to whether the land sold is agricultural land or it is to be treated as a capital asset in the terms of section 2(14) of the Act. It is true that the definition of agricultural land is not given in the Income-tax Act, but various factors contribute to ascertain the correct nature of a particular piece of land. If a land is situated within 8 kms of the municipal limits of a city even if it is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records, it is to be treated as non-agricultural land and for that matter an Asset but in this case, the admitted fact is that this land falls beyond 8 kms from the notified limit. It is true that as per revenue records, the land has bee....