TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of law:- "i) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has applied legal principles correctly by considering inadmissible evidence and not considering admissible and relevant evidence? ii) Whether on the facts and in law the Hon'ble, ITAT was right in not adjudicating the issue regarding assessment of the profit from the sale of land treating as adventure in the nature of trade and assessable as business income under sections 2(13) and 45 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the, Hon'ble ITAT was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as income from undisclosed sources instead of agricultural income claimed by the assessee since no agricul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s income and after allowing the benefit of cost price and stamp duty paid, made an addition of Rs. 4,78,02,000/-. With regard to agricultural income of Rs. 40,000/-, the respondent was required to explain the nature of the agricultural product being sold. The assessee replied that it was growing sarson (mustard). It also stated that the agricultural produce was sold to M/s Sat Pal Bhagwan Dass and produced J Forms in support thereof. On enquiry, no such firm was found in existence. The Assessing Officer treated the income of Rs. 40,000/- as undisclosed income. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] During the proceedings, the assessee furnished additional evidence which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thus, the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal had wrongly set aside the assessment order dated 31.12.2010. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. 6. Undisputedly, the respondent-assessee HUF had purchased land measuring 49 kanals 10 marlas on 25.11.2003 and had sold some part of it in the year 2008 for a sum of Rs. 5,26,68,750/. The respondent claimed the said sale consideration to be its agricultural income in its return of income for the assessment year in question. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.12.2010 assessed the same as its business income inter alia on the ground that no agricultural activity was being done on the land by the respondent prior to its sale; the land had lost its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng carrying on of agricultural activity was also rightly reversed as the Assessing Officer had based its conclusion on the basis of report of December 2010 of the Inspector in respect of agricultural activity prior to the sale in January 2008. It was also recorded that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the assessee's alternative claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act as it had made investment worth Rs. 7.18 crores more than the sale consideration within a short period of six months by acquiring a residential property at New Delhi. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and various decisions relied upon by the assessee before the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arguments together with evidences, including the additional evidence but repeated the facts as mentioned in the assessment order. Therefore, we find no error in the order of the learned CIT(A) who has held that under the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a)/ (b), the assessee's land can be held as agricultural land situated beyond 8 kms outside the Gurgaon Municipal limits and that the area population of residents of the village Fazilpur Jharsa being below 10000, the assessee's asset is outside the purview of capital asset. The AO is not justified in rejecting the assessee's alternative claim of exemption under section 54F as it has made investment worth Rs. 7.18 crores more than the sale consideration within a short period of si....