TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tenable; for, the population of Coimbatore Corporation is above 10000 Nos. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the judgement in the case of G.M. Omerkhan Vs. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC) wherein it has been clearly held, in the said decision, that not the village in which the agricultural land is situated is to be considered but, the jurisdictional municipality, for testing the nature of such land as to whether a capital asset or not. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in overlooking the report of the assessing officer and deleting the addition made by him. 6. The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the land in question constitutes capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act in as much as the land is situated within the distance of 8 Kms from the Corporation limits. 7. The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that when the full value of sale consideration amounted to Rs. 1,82,49,000/- no prudent man would utilize the land for any agricultural purposes. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering that the assessee could not produce any evidence for expenses such as sales commission and other charges etc. amounting to Rs. 17,38,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stance was still longer at 11.3 kms., from the end of corporation limit on Ganapathy - Sathy Road. At paragraph 8, the AO has stated that the distance from the municipal corporation limit starting from Vilankurichi Road: up to the point of the land was measured and the distance is 7.6 kms., within a radius of about 5 kms., only. Moreover, there was a pucca road which joins the above property with the main stream. The appellant objects to this finding of the AO because it is contrary to the facts. Firstly, the AO has not specified the exact S.F. Number of the land which was found at a distance of 7.6 kms., to contradict the distance as proved by the appellant accompanying him at the time of inspection and also certified by the approved Valuer at 9 kms., from the corporation limit on the Vilankurichi Road to the area of land in S. F. No.589-181 & 182 in question. Secondly, the pucca road ending at a distance of 7.6 kms., is not ending at S.F.No.589-181 & 182 and it is not situated at the end of 7.6 kms., but situated farther away well beyond 8 kms. Sarkar Samakulam village admittedly is not a village referred to under Section 2(14)(iii)(b). The AO with a closed mind concluded that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the same was conveyed in appellant's favour by way of registered sale deed. The CIT(A) has also asked the appellant to clarify regarding the nature of transactions having the characteristic of an adventure in the nature of trade. In reply to the observations of the CIT(A), the appellant vide his letter dated 16.7.2010 submitted that the statement of the AO referred to by the CIT(A), does not state the facts correctly. The appellant explained as under: The statement of the AO that the assessee has received an advance of Rs. 1 crore from the purchaser i.e., the property developer on 9.9.2006 itself, but purchased the property only on 11.9.2006 is an incorrect statement of facts. Shri Aswin stated that he has not received any advance from the purchaser on 9.9.2006. The entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,82,49,OOO/- was received by DD only at the time of execution and the registration of the document of sale by the appellant's power of attorney Shri D. Rathinasamy. The investment in land was made by the appellant only out of his own funds only and it was never made with an intention to trade in that said land. Shri Aswin submitted that he being practicing CA., did not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 0.391 4. Panchayat Road Km 0/0 1/2 , 1.218 5. Sitra Kurumbapalayam Road Km 0.462 6. Earthern Road (Cart track) 0.800 Total length 8.112 9. Similarly, the Assessing Officer also submitted a certificate issued by the Tahsildar [north] dated 26.7.2010 that during the year 2004-05, S. F. No. 589-1B1 and 1B2 are under cultivation of Maize and Toor Dhal. Further to his submission, the appellant vide letter dated 13.10.2010 submitted that the credit on, 9.9:2006 into his Savings Bank account in respect of the banker's cheques on ICICI Bank dated 08.09.2006 for Rs. 45 lakhs and Rs. 55 lakhs was the amount received from Shri S. Martin of Coimbatore. The appellant submitted confirmation letter of Shri Martin regarding the loan amount of Rs. 1 crore given to him vide ICICI bank cheques of Rs. 45 lakhs and Rs. 55 Iakhs. This proves that the observation of the Assessing Officer 'that the assessee has received an advance of Rs. 1 crore from the purchaser on 9.9.2006 Is far from facts. 10. Further, regarding the sale consideration of Rs. 1,82,49,000/~ received on behalf of the appellant by his power agent, t....