TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1005
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venience. 2. Brief facts which need necessary mention for adjudication of the issues involved in these appeals are that during the financial year 2009-10, the assessees being the owners-in-possession of land bearing GAT No 929, area measuring 1-69-4 hectares situated at village Dhokawala, Taluka Alibag Distt. Raigarh sold their shares in the said land to Shri. Abhijit Bhandari for a total consideration of Rs. 4,21,00,000/-. However, the assessee did not offer any capital gain on the sale of property in their income tax returns for the reason that the land sold does not fall within the preview of capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act, being an agricultural land. In case of assessee Mohit Suresh Harchandani, ITA No. 364/M/2013 the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 declaring the total income of Rs. 19,75,502/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1). However, on the basis of information received from ITO -14, Mumbai that the assessee had sold his asset i.e., share in the aforesaid land but not offered the capital gain to tax, the assessment was reopened and assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, was passed determining the total income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of village Dhokawade admeasuring 1-96-4 hectares equivalent to 169.4 gunthas equivalent to 16,940 sq. meters on 09th August, 2009 for a total consideration of Rs. 4,21,00,000/-. The assessee did not offer any capital gain on the sale of the land because at the time of sale the land was an 'agricultural land' within meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. That as per certificate issued by Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Dhokawade the land in question is at the distance of 16 KM from Alibaug Nagarpalika and the population of the said village in the year 2009 was 3,086 persons. The land was recorded as agricultural land in the records of rights maintained by the department of revenue and was subject to payment of land revenue. The said land was never put to any non- agricultural use by the assessee and that the assessee carried on agricultural activities on said land viz. planting of saplings of Mango, Supari, Coconut, rice and vegetables. The Ld. counsel further submitted that since the findings of the AO are based on wrong assumptions and not based on the evidence on record, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have set aside the same. Since, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rely because of entries in the revenue records to that effect. However, in the present case the assessee has claimed that agricultural activities such as planting of Mango trees, Supari trees, Coconut trees, cultivation of rice and vegetables etc. was carried on by the assessee as co-owner in possession of the land. The assessee has submitted the copies of 7/12 extracts to prove the classification of land as agricultural land, copies of receipts issued against the land revenue paid to prove that land in question was agricultural land and land revenue was paid accordingly from time to time, copies of affidavits sworn by Mr. Kesarinath Patil and Mr. Vijay Wakde, to establish that the land was used for agricultural purposes since it was acquired by the assessee and others and they used to carry out the agricultural activities in the said land and they were paid in cash or kind by the assessee. The assessee has placed on record the Bills and Vouchers to prove that seeds fertilizers pesticides and other materials required for carrying on agricultural activities to substantiate its claim. The assessee has also submitted the site plan to show the location of Ground Well, Bore Well, mango ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the AO to falsify the documentary and circumstantial evidence placed on record by the assessee. Even the persons who carried out the agricultural activities at the instance of the assessee were not examined to controvert the contents of the affidavits sworn by them. Before us, the counsel for the assessee placed on the record the copy of application dated 23/03/2010 under sub-section (1) of section 44 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Act, 1966 submitted by the purchaser of the land Sh. Abhijit Bhandari for permission for using the land for horticulture or similar purposes. The contents of the said application further establish that the land in question was agricultural land in the year 2010 when the said application was moved. Further we find that the facts of the present case are different from the facts of the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (supra) relied on by the Ld CIT(A) on certain material points. In the said case, the property was situated within the limits of Surat Municipality and at the distance of one K.M. from Surat Railway station. A portion of the plot had already been converted to non-agricultural purposes after obtaining requisite permission from the concerned....