TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 656
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-15, Chennai dated 29.11.2018 for the above assessment year is contrary to law & facts in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals)-15 failed to appreciate that Assessing officer erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act and consequently erred in completing the re-assessment u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals)-15 grossly erred by sustaining the Assessment order, and failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer went wrong by treating the sale of agricultural land as business income and thereby bringing to tax an amount of Rs. 1,93,71,600/- which is contradictory to the facts of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer wherein sale of agricultural land was treated as a business income on the premise that appellant is also carrying on the business of real estate. The fact that this transaction is purely in respect of personal agriculture land held by the Appellant and independent of his business activity was overlooked. 10. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2010-11. As per AIR information, assessee and another person has sold immovable property for Rs. 4.00 crores. On the basis of the said information, case was reopen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... profit derived from the said land was assessable under the head 'income from business or profession', accordingly assessed the total profit derived from sale of land under the head 'income from business or profession'. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A), but could not succeed. The learned CIT(A) for the reasons recorded in appellate order dated 29.11.2018 by following the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. L.S. Manickam (1995) 215 ITR 519 (Madras) held that to decide whether particular income is assessable under the head income from business or is it exempt as agricultural income depends upon the nature of activity carried out and the intentions of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement. The learned AR further referring to the paper book filed submitted that on perusal of the purchase deed and sale deed of the impugned land, it is clear that the nature of land was very much specified as agricultural land and the Revenue records clearly indicated that the lands are agricultural lands. The assessee has also produced necessary certificate from Tahsildar to prove that agricultural activities are being carried out in the said lands. The Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have ignored all evidences filed by the assessee and assessed gain derived from sale of land under the head 'income from business or profession'. 5. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly supporting the order the learned CIT(A) submitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me from business or profession' and we find that there is no substance in the reasons given by the lower authorities because there is no bar under the law for a business person to buy land for agricultural purposes. When there is no bar in law for a business person to hold land for agricultural purposes, then merely for the reason that the said person engaged in the business of buying and selling of lands, the profit derived from sale of agricultural land cannot be brought to tax under the head 'income from business or profession', more particularly when the nature of land was agricultural land at the time of purchase as well as at the time of sale. Further, the assessee has also filed necessary evidence to prove that impugned l....