TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 38
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T.A Nos.2358/Chny/2016 and 2359/Chny/2016 for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the capital assets viz., vacant land sold by the Assessee was agricultural land as defined u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act especially when no agricultural operations was done by the Assessee prior to the sale and the assessee had obtained permission for converting the lands from agriculture use to non agriculture use prior to the date of the sale? 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal perverse by holding that the land sold did not attract the provisions of Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning [for brevity 'DTCP'] for conversion of the land for nonagricultural purpose vide order dated 23.08.2008, i.e., prior to the execution of sale deed on 03.12.2008. Therefore, the assessing officer opined that on the date of sale, the land is no longer agricultural land and not eligible for claiming exemption for capitalised tax. The above was a reason for issuing notice under Section 148 Act dated 22.06.2012. 5. The assessee submitted a detailed reply dated 19.06.2013 supported by the relevant documents. The assessing officer, however, did not accept the stand taken by the assessees and completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act vide order dated 17.03.2015 and held that on the date of sale, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ltural purpose to non-agricultural purpose prior to execution of the sale deed and this approval given by the competent authority was based upon a certificate issued by the Tahsildar stating that for three previous years, no agricultural activity was done by the assessees. Further, it is submitted that the assessing officer rightly applied the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1993] 70 Taxman 301 (SC) and held that majority of the 13 questions framed were answered against the assessee and therefore, concluded that the lands, which were sold were non-agricultural lands. 9. Further, it is submitted that more or less, in an identical issue, the Division Bench of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding site. The Sub-Registrar has further directed that the lands were valued in cents and not in square feet. Apart from that, recorded the standing coconut trees, which were valued as per horticultural norms. That apart, the CITA found that the approval granted by the DTCP was no longer valid. 11. Apart from that, the said authority is not the final authority, who is to grant approval for reclassification of a land from agricultural to non-agricultural category. In fact, the procedure prescribed under the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is a very elaborate procedure and it is ultimately, the Government, which has to take a decision in the matter. 12. The conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purpose has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d certified on 01.12.2008, i.e., prior to execution of sale deed that the assessees and their family members were using the land for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, the President of Andal Kuppam Panchayat within whose limits the land is situated, has certified that the assessees and their family members are using the lands for cultivation of paddi, sugarcanes, ground nuts, mango and coconut etc., and the land, as mentioned in the sale deed has to be construed as 'unbuilt land', but not 'non-agricultural land'. This document was placed before the assessing officer. Furthermore, the statements of neighbouring land owners were also available before the assessing officer. Therefore, on facts, the first appellate authority ....