TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 782
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'] for the assessment year 2008-2009 [for brevity 'AY'] . 2. The Appeal was admitted on 26.06.2019 on the following Substantial Questions of Law: "i. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct and justified in holding that the land sold was an agricultural land when the assessee purchased it with an intention to sell and sold it within short period of less than one year? and ii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the land purchased had potentiality of bein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee, who appeared through the authorised representative, though belatedly, questionnaires were prepared and issued to the assessee and after considering all the aspects, the assessment was completed by order dated 14.03.2014 treating the land as 'non-agricultural land' and would come within the category of 'capital asset' under Section 2(14) of the Act, chargeable to tax under the head 'capital gains'. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee preferred appeal to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Chennai (CITA), who by order dated 26.04.2018 dismissed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed by the impugned order, challenging the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tural use of the land ? If so, when and by whom (the vendor or the vendee) ? Whether such permission was in respect of the whole or a portion of the land ? If the permission was in respect of a portion of the land and if it was obtained in the past, what was the nature of the user of the said portion of the land on the material date ? (6)Whether the land, on the relevant date, had ceased to be put to agricultural use? If so, whether it was put to an alternative use ? Whether such cesser and/or alternative user was of a permanent or temporary nature ? (7)Whether the land, though entered in revenue records, had never been actually used for agriculture, that is, it had never been ploughed or tilled ? Whether the owner meant o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dry land. (ii) No (iii) Stopgap arrangement. (iv) No (vi) No (vii) No (viii) Yes (ix) No (x) No (xii) Sold on acreage basis (xiii) No 8. The answers, which we have given to the above questions are after noting the factual details, as culled out by the assessing officer, after direction was issued under Section 263 of the Act by the CITA. 9. The assessing officer has framed the questionnaire and has referred to Question Nos.8,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 in the assessment order, unfortunately, the assessee did not give any reply to the questionnaire supported by required documentary evidence. The submission of the authorised representative were all perta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../ assessee is that the burden of proof lies on the department and the land having been registered as an agricultural land, the assessee has discharged his burden and it is for the revenue to establish the same. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Rathi reported in [2018] 404 ITR 0173 (Madras). In our considered view, this decision will not help the assessee's case because in the said case, the agricultural income, which was offered by the assessee was accepted and the assessee was assessed to agricultural income tax, however, in the instant case, the Revenue disputed the character of the land, as claimed by the assessee to be agricultural. 12. A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y were put to prejudice on account of a statement given by the Village Administrative officer, therefore, to raise such a plea at this juncture, is impermissible. 15. We also take note of the decision relied on by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned standing counsel for the appellant in the case of Fazalbhoy Investment Co., (P.) Limited V. Commissioner of Income tax reported in [1989] 42 Taxmann 22 (Bom) to hold that the finding of the Tribunal in the impugned order is utterly perverse. It has totally brushed aside the evidence, which was brought on record by the assessing officer, which was re-appreciated by the CITA to hold against the assessee. We also refer to the decision relied on by the revenue in the case of Rajiv Dass Vs. Deputy Commissioner o....