TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 1549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... multiple Grounds of Appeal but the solitary issue raised is with regard to the action of the CIT(A) in holding that the land in question sold by the assessee was not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act and thus the surplus on sale of such land was not liable to be taxed as 'capital gains'. 3. In brief, the facts are that assessee is an individual, who had purchased agricultural land located at Urawade Tal. Mulshi, admeasuring 3 Hector 19 Aar having Gat No. 794 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 10.11.1993 in co-ownership with one Shri Ajay Gajanan Mahendale, having equal share. During the year under consideration, assessee alongwith the co-owner sold the land to Smt. Roma Suresh Galgali and others by way of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....receipts from the date of purchase of land in 1993 till the date of sale. It was also pointed out before the Assessing Officer that assessee had never sought permission from the date of purchase till the sale for conversion of the land to any non-agricultural use. The Assessing Officer, however, disagreed with the aforesaid point of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the 7/12 extract indicated that only grass was grown between the period 2001-02 to 2009-10 and therefore according to him on the date of sale, the land was not being used for agricultural purposes. The Assessing Officer held that the land in question was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore the surplus acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ombay High Court in the case Smt. Debbie Alemao, Joaquim Alemao (2011) 331 ITR 59 (Bom) for the proposition that so long as the land was shown in the State revenue records as 'agricultural land' and no permission was ever obtained for non-agricultural use by the assessee, it has to be treated as an agricultural land. Assessee also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohd Ibrahim and others vs. CIT, 204 ITR 631 (SC) and demonstrated that if the thirteen tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were applied, the land of the assessee is liable to be treated as an agricultural land. In para 3.2 of his order, CIT(A) has reproduced a Tabulation furnished by the assessee, as to how assessee's cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ersy before us relates to considering whether the land in question falls within the definition of a 'capital asset' u/s 2(14) of the Act. The claim of the assessee is that the land in question is an agricultural land located at distance which is beyond 8 kilometers from the local limits of any municipality and population of the village in which such land is situated is less than ten thousand and therefore, it qualifies to be an agricultural land which is excludible from the expression 'capital asset' as per clause (iii) to sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Act. On the contrary, the stand of the Revenue is that there was no evidence to show that agricultural activities were carried out on the said land and therefore it was not excludible ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e land was not actually used for agricultural purpose as no agricultural income was declared and rejected it in view of the Land revenue records and the land was held to be agricultural land. Similarly, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lavleen Singhai vs. DCIT (2007) 111 TTJ 326 (Del) observed that where a land is recognized as agricultural land in Land revenue records at the time of purchase by the assessee and nothing has been done by the assessee for putting it to non-agricultural use, the same could not be treated as non-agricultural land merely on account of absence of agricultural operations for a part of the period of holding. In our considered opinion, in the present case, it is not in dispute that after acquiring the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as started to have been grown. Therefore, the land which is agricultural for the past 11 years could not become non-agricultural only because no agricultural operations were carried out during the last two years." 13. In our considered opinion, no error has been made by the CIT(A) in holding that on account of the objection of the Assessing Officer the land in question could not become non-agricultural land. Another aspect which is of relevance in the present situation is that assessee pointed out that the land in question was indeed sold to an agriculturist as is borne out from the sale-deed and therefore no permission was required to be obtained u/s 3 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. This aspect of the matter has remain....