TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are that there was search action in the case of the assessee at her residential premises on 17-10-2007. The assessee filed her return of income for the assessment year under consideration at Rs.30,98,620/- and agricultural income of Rs.8,400/-. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer made disallowance of Rs.8,400/- treating the agricultural income as non-agricultural income. He also made disallowance of Rs.21,000/- claimed by the assessee under section 80C of the Income-tax Act. Further, the assessee along with three others, who are also appellants before us, had sold 5 acres 6 ghuntas of agricultural land situated in survey No.218, 219 and 225 of Narsingi Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Hyderabad to Sun Breeze Estates & Developers Ltd. and received consideration of Rs.33,25,00,000. The assessee was having 1/4th share therein. The assessee claimed that no capital gains arose out of the said transaction, as the land sold was of agricultural nature, and hence not a capital asset in terms of S.2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. However, the Assessing Officer rejecting the contention of the assessee, proceeded to bring to tax long term capital gains arising out of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....column of 'cultivation' in the Pahani Patrika. However, relying on the evidence collected by him, and taking note of the disputes that were existing with regard to the ownership of the land between the assessee and others, the assessing officer concluded that the land sold by the assessee was not agricultural use. Hence, for this reason also, the assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee for relief under S.54B of the Act, observing it is not allowable unless the land sold was agricultural land. 5. Though the assessing officer raised no dispute with regard to the sale consideration received on the sale of land, which was adopted at Rs.33,25,00,000, he disputed the cost of acquisition of land as on 1.4.1981 disclosed by the assessee at Rs.7,21,000, i.e. Rs.1,40,000 per acre, and called upon the assessee to furnish necessary evidence with regard to adoption of Rs.1,40,000 per acre as on 1.4.1981. Since the assessee failed to furnish such evidence, the assessing officer adopted the rate per acre at Rs.10,000 based on the rate adopted by other persons selling land to DLF group in the same area. The assessing officer also observed in this behalf that persons of Md. Kareemuddi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the assessing officer, the assessee requested the assessing officer to inspect the lands at that stage. The assessee also filed pahani patrika for the financial year 2006-07, the slab pass-book issued by the Electricity Board before the lower authorities. It was also submitted that there was an open well in the land and water was supplied to the crop through electric motor pumping. Even after the request of the assessee the assessing officer not carried out any enquiry and drew adverse inference against the assessee. Further, the learned AR of the assessee stated before us that the assessee being an agriculturist and not carrying out any business activity and not maintained any books of account. Thus, the assessee failed to maintain sale-bills, purchase bills and bills towards purchase of fertilizers. Further, it was observed that the assessee in the course of statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act stated that the paddy and the vegetables were grown and the same was used for self consumption. The assessing officer without bringing any evidence against the assessee, disallowed the claim of the assessee. Further, for disbelieving the contention of the assessed, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Srinivas Pandit(HUF) V/s. ITO Ward 7(4), Hyderabad dated 23.4.2010 in ITA No.56/Hyd/2007 for assessment year 2003-04. Further, it is submitted that the land sold is an agricultural land, and the consideration received on the sale of land in question was utilized for the purchase of agricultural lands only, and as such the assessee is very much entitled for relief under S.54B of the Act, and the lower authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. He submitted that the lower authorities were not justified in treating the lands of the assessee giving rise to the capital gains in dispute, as of non-agricultural nature. It is submitted that even though there were disputes about the ownership of the property sold, the lands sold were in the possession of the assessee, who was carrying on agricultural operations on the same. He also submitted that the assessee has also filed before the assessing officer, an affidavit of the Village Revenue Officer, who mentioned that due to pressure of work, he had not filled in the column of 'cultivation' in the Pahani Patrika. The assessing officer did not give due weightage to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....title the assessee to relief under S.54B of the Act, and what is required to be complied with to fulfil the conditions prescribed under S.54B is the actual purchase of the agricultural lands within the time stipulated. He also submitted that the cost of acquisition arrived at and reported by the assessee is excessive, and the assessee could not substantiate the claim in this behalf, by producing necessary evidence in the form of comparable cases of the relevant time, notwithstanding opportunity given by the assessing officer for that purpose. 15. We have considered the rival submissions. We do not find merit in the contention of the assessee. The land in question giving rise to capital gain was, in fact, urban land though agricultural operations have been carried out on them. The assessee placed before the lower authorities pahani patrika, VRO's Certificate and details of electricity Bill/slab pass Book etc. We have held on that basis in earlier paras that the assessee derived agricultural income. But, the question still remains whether the impugned land come within the meaning of "capital asset". The land is situated at Narsing Village of Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R. District whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, assessee would not be entitled for relief under S.54B. There is some merit in this reasoning of the assessing officer. However, in terms of S.54B of the Act, assessee has to purchase the agricultural land within a period of two years. Hence, though mere payment of advance does not entitle the assessee for relief under S.54B of the Act, if ultimately whole transaction of purchase of land was completed within a period of two years as contemplated under S.54B of the Act, assessee is entitled for relief under S.54B of the Act. In this view of the matter, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities, and restore this issue to the file of the assessing officer for verifying whether the assessee has purchased the agricultural lands within a period of two years, so as to qualify for relief under S.54B of the Act, and accordingly re-decide this issue in accordance with law and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Grounds of the assessee on this issue are allowed for statistical purpose. 16. The next grievance of the assessee which arises for consideration relates to charging of interest under S.234B and 234C of the Act. Assessee's ground in this behalf rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hmed and his brother. Surprisingly Mirza Iqbal and group had also claimed to be doing agricultural operation on the same piece of land. They had also produced the same type of evidence as that the appellant has produced. It is not possible that two different group of individuals both claiming right over the same land can do agricultural operation on the same piece of land during the same period. In such a situation, a land in which there are several claimants, it is unimaginable that one of the claimants can carry on the agricultural operation to the detriment of others interest and others would be silent spectators. It is also worthwhile to mention that the Assessing officer had treated the agricultural income as non-agricultural income for the Assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08 also but no appeal seems to have been preferred against the said decision of the AO meaning thereby that the appellant has accepted in principle the stand taken by the AO treating agricultural income as non-agricultural income. Thus, considering the fact and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that he had derived agricultural income from the disputed land....