TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 188
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jointly sold by all the four co-owners vide registered sale deed dated 28-12-2011. The assesse in his original return of income declared his share of income from sale of aforesaid property as long term capital gain. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income and claimed exemption on sale proceeds of land, claiming it to be agricultural land. In scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim of exemption on proceeds from sale of land and held the same as taxable under the head 'capital gains'. Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 27/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) confirmed the findings of Assessing Officer in holding gain on sale of land as 'long term capital gain'. However, the CIT (A) granted benefit of exemption under section 54EC of the Act to the extent investment was made by the assessee in NHAI Bonds. Still aggrieved, against the order of First Appellate Authority, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 366 and 365 is 1.33 acres. A perusal of 7/12 extracts would show that rice was cultivated on the land in question since long including the period in which land was sold. 4.2 The ld. Counsel of the assessee further contended that in the case of other two co-owners i.e. Smt. Sanober N. Irani and Shri Karl Navzer Irani the Department has accepted that the land is agriculture land and the gain arising from sale of said land is exempt from tax. The ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished copies of income tax returns of the aforesaid co-owners and intimation of assessment under section 143(1) of the Act. The ld. Counsel of the assessee pointed that the fact that the property including bungalow and agricultural land is jointly owned by four persons was very much in the knowledge of the First Appellate Authority. The assessee in written submission made before the CIT (A) had highlighted this fact, however, the CIT (A) failed to take note of this vital fact. 4.3. The ld. Counsel of the assessee finally asserted that there is no evidence on record to show that there was conversion of land for nonagriculture purpose, therefore, it is immaterial that any income from agriculture is declared ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assesse is at a distance of about 13 Kms from the nearest Municipal Council of Alibag and the population of Village Awas, where the land is situated is less than 10,000. (ii) 7/12 Extract to substantiate that the land was agricultural land and rice crop was cultivated on the same. (iii) Registered sale deed to show the total area of land sold and details of Bungalow/super structure on the land. 9. The assessee has declared long term capital gain on sale of bungalow and has offered the same to tax. The dispute is only with regard to the agriculture land. A perusal of 7/12 extracts furnished by the assesse reveal that rice was cultivated on the land comprising in Gut No. 363, 364, 365 and 366. Even in Form No. 7,7A appended to the registered sale deed, cultivation of rice is shown during the year 2011-12. 7/12 and Form 7, 7A are part of revenue records maintained by the Authorities under State Government. Since, these are the records maintained by Government Authorities, some sanctity has to be attached to such records for ascertaining crop cultivated, nature of land, etc. Revenue records cannot be brushed aside altogether while determining nature of land. It is not the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assesse is allowed, in similar terms. 15. These appeal were heard on 03-01-2020. As per Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, (ITAT Rules, 1963), the order was required to be "ordinarily" pronounced within a period of 90 days from the date of conclusion of the hearing of appeal. The instant appeal was heard prior to the lockdown declared by the Hon'ble Prime Minister on 24-03-2020 in view of COVID-19 pandemic. The lockdown was forced due to extra ordinary circumstances caused by wide spread of COVID-19. Thereafter, the lockdown was extended from time to time. Therefore, the pronouncement of order beyond the period of 90 days from the date of hearing is not under "ordinary" circumstances. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd., ITA No.6264/Mum/2018 for A.Y 2013-14 decided on 14/05/2020, under identical circumstances, after considering the provisions of Rule 34(5) of the ITAT Rules, 1963, judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the issue of time limit for pronouncement of orders by the Tribunal and the circumstances leading to lockdown held:- "10. In the light of the above dis....