TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITA.No.4551/Del./2019 - A.Y. 2014 2015 M/s. Magic Landcon LLP, New Delhi. 3. The facts of the case are that Assessee-Firm filed its return of income declaring NIL income on 18.07.2014. The case was selected for limited scrutiny with reason "Large Agricultural Income". Statutory notices and questionnaire were issued to the assessee. The assessee attended the assessment proceedings and submitted necessary details and documents on the above issue. The A.O. noted that assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 1,99,76,064/- arising out of profit on sale of agricultural land amounting to Rs. 1,95,48,622/- and agricultural income from sale of agricultural produce at Rs. 4,27,442/-. The A.O. accepted the returned income vide Order Dated 25.11.2016 under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3.1. The Ld. Pr. CIT on examination of the assessment records found that assessee has shown total agricultural income of Rs. 1,99,76,064/- arising out of profit on sale of agricultural land of Rs. 1,95,48,622/- and agricultural income from sale of agricultural produce of Rs. 4,27,442/-. During the year assessee has claimed to have sold agricultural land including trees etc., fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e received by the Firm only. All the payments against sale were received by the Firm from Shri Dilip Kumar Arya, the buyer. The Ld. Pr. CIT examined the contention of assessee and did not accept the same. It was noted from the details of the land that property in Khasra 197/12.15 Hectare at Village Kaluhera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan was purchased through four sale/purchase deeds from four different persons by Mr Satbir for a consideration of Rs. 30,83,200/- as against the higher value as per Stamp Valuation Authority. The land was purchased by Mr Satbir in his personal capacity, therefore, he was owner of the property. Shri Satbir sold the property through Shri Vinod Kumar Garg for a consideration of Rs. 2.25 crores, therefore, neither the Company nor the Firm was owner of the property in question. 3.2. As regards stamp duty paid on sale of land at Rs. 18,65,870/-, it was explained that it has withdrawn cash from Union Bank amounting to Rs. 15 lacs on 05.08.2013 and Rs. 32,500/- on 08.08.2013 and furnished a Slip of Rs. 15,65,870/-. There was a difference found in the same since in the sale deed it is mentioned that purchaser has paid the expenses. Therefore, there is no qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceeds through Power of Attorney Holder. There may be a typographical error in mentioning the name of the place or the amounts spent for purchase of stamp duty etc., but, assessee explained the source of the same. The amount of sale consideration is received in the books of the assessee. The assessee had been earning agricultural income from sale of Agricultural produce, the details of the same were filed along with receipts of 'Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti'. All these details along with evidences were submitted before the Ld. Pr. CIT, but, he did not examine any of the documents. PB-175 is another reply filed before Ld. Pr. CIT. PB-3 to 4 are the balance sheet of assessment year under appeal to show that after sale of the land, it has removed from the fixed assets and value have been shown at NIL and in income, net agricultural income have been shown from sale of agricultural land as well as produce and claimed exemption. PB-5 onwards is statutory notice issued by the A.O. at assessment stage asking the copy of the land record of the land from which agricultural income has been earned, gross receipts from agriculture, total expenditure along with bills and vouchers, details of agr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the ground of inadequate enquiry. He has relied upon Judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs., Sunbeam Auto Ltd., [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del.), CIT vs., Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83 (Del.) and CIT vs. International Travel House [2012] 344 ITR 554 (Del.). He has submitted that since there was no error in the Order of the A.O, therefore, Order passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, is not permissible and relied upon Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT, Delhi-IV vs., DLF Ltd., [2013] 350 ITR 555 (Del.). The Ld. Pr. CIT even after insertion of Explanation-2 to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act need to point-out the failure on the part of the A.O. in not conducting relevant enquiries which were critical for decision of the issue. He has relied upon Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-11 vs., Indian Farmers & Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd., ITA.No.597/2017, Dated 02.08.2017. Since, A.O. examined all the issues at assessment stage and accepted the contention of assessee, therefore, the assessment order is not erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, order need to be s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in Khasra 197/12.15 Hectors. The same details are mentioned in the Khatauni of the land. In this sale deed, it is specifically mentioned that entire sale consideration have been received through cheque by the First Party - Seller from Second Party - Buyer, M/s. Magic Landcon LLP. This will strengthen the explanation of assessee that the land sold was in Khasra 197 and area was same as have been mentioned in the Khatauni. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that there were two different properties which have been sold by Shri Satbir through the General Power of Attorney Holder. The explanation of assessee is thus acceptable that there may be a typographical error in mentioning the property at Berhore in the audited accounts of the assessee-company. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, during the course of arguments have also submitted that the Berhore is a big area and as such it might have been mentioned though the property falls in the same area. These facts also supports the explanation of assessee that assessee owned the agricultural land and sold it for a consideration which have been duly disclosed to the Revenue Department in earlier year as well as in assessment year under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Del.) held that "Revisional Authority feeling a case of inadequate enquiry, must make enquiry to make out a case under section 263 of Income Tax Act." The assessee in the paper book has also filed an affidavit of Shri Satbir, in which he has confirmed that property was purchased in his name, but, he has not spent any consideration. The property was registered in his name by the Company now known as "Limited Liability Partnership Firm" and entire sale consideration have been received by the Assessee-Firm being the owner. This would also strengthen the case of the assessee that it was owner of the property in question. The assessee also produced sufficient evidence before A.O. to show that it has earned agricultural income out of the sale of agricultural land and agricultural produce. Since the case was selected for limited scrutiny only on these points and assessee furnished adequate explanation and evidences before the A.O, which have been examined by the A.O, therefore, it is not a case of even inadequate enquiry. In the show cause notice issued by the Ld. Pr. CIT, Dated 21.12.2018, at the end of Para No.6, after considering the facts of the case noted th....