TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1981
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommon ground raised in the appeals of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the land sold by the assessees were agricultural land and hence not liable for capital gain tax. Since common ground on same set of facts has been raised, all the appeals were heard together and being disposed of by this common order for the sake of brevity. We shall take I.T.A. No. 1587/Chny/2017 as lead case. 2. At the outset, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee had obtained the approval for conversion of land to non-agricultural purposes on 25.08.2008 from the competent authority by obtaining "No Objection Certificate" from the Tahsildar, which was given only when agricultural activities were not conducted for three years through a letter, based on which the competent authority conveyed approval to use the land for nonagricultural purposes. It was the submission that the above four assessee's sold their land jointly in a single sale deed to a company by name Agility Logistics Private Limited for the purpose of construction of cargo cum truck terminal. By referring to para 4.14 of the sale deed, the ld. DR has submitted that after obtaining approval from the competent auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verifications as stated in his order at para 17 to 17.9 by taking cue of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim 204 ITR 631 referring to the case of Siddharth J. Desai 139 ITR 631, wherein various parameters have been set out for deciding the issue without being influenced by earlier events. 5. We shall look into the observations of the Assessing Officer on the specific findings of the ld. PCIT and clarification/evidence furnished by the assessee. 5.1 As par para 17.1, without elaborately discussing the 13 factors identified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim (supra), the ld. PCIT has made a mention that "It is noted that out of the 13 factors identified in this judgement, majority support the assessee's case". In the assessment order the Assessing Officer has listed the questions and answer furnished by the assessee and the same are reproduced as under: i. Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subjected to payment or land revenue? * The land revenue was paid ii. Whether the land was actually or ordinarily used for agricultural purpose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the sale only with an intention to sell as a land for non-agricultural land. viii. Whether the land was situated in a developed area? Whether in physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of the lands in the adjoining area were such as would indicate the land was agricultural? * The land is situated in an industrial and developed area. Factories of companies namely Engine Valves, Nelcast and some hollow block manufacturing units were in existence for a period of more than 15 year nearby to the land in question. ix. Whether the land itself was developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities? * The land is not developed by plotting and providing roads. It was never intended to be sold as plots but was to be used for construction of truck bay. x. Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? * No. xi. Whether permission under Section 63 of the Bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948 was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of a nonagriculturist? If so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non-agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural use? * T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate issued by the Registration Department for the period from 01.01.2007 to 01.03.2016, wherein, it was stated that the status of the above properties under dispute is "AGRICULTURAL LAND" and thus, it is amply clear that the so-called approval does not exist or the purchaser has not used the land for nonagricultural purposes. 5.3 Para 17.4 & 17.5 of the PCIT order: The assessee further claimed that he had neither sought for nor obtained any approval from other State and Central Government Departments as per condition No. 7 and therefore the permission obtained has not reached finality. The AO has to conduct enquiries to verify whether approvals from other Central/State Governments have been actually obtained as per condition No. 7 or not. • The Assessing Officer could not produce any evidence that the assessee has obtained approvals from other State and Central Government Departments as per condition No. 7 and therefore, we find that the permission obtained by the assessee from the Deputy Director, Town Planning (Genl.), Chengalpet vide order No. Na. Ka. 3502/2008/Ch.M.6 dated 23.09.2008 has not attained its finality. Further, it is evident from the reply under RTI ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was no offer of any income on account of sale of property or investment in property. To the return the assessee appended a note to the effect that the assessee sold agricultural land at 77/74, Sheshagiri halli, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram taluk, during April, 2004 for a total consideration of Rs. 90,00,000/-. However, it was stated that it does not result in any capital gain since the land sold was agricultural land situated beyond 8 kms from corporation limit of Bangalore city as defined in section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. This land measuring 9 acres was converted for non-agricultural purpose. It was further stated that though the land was converted, agricultural activities were carried on up to the date of sale. Therefore, what was sold was agricultural land within the meaning of section 2(14) and there was no capital gains tax arising out of such sales within the meaning of the definition of the term "capital asset". Since the assessee did not offer any capital gain and claimed that it was agricultural land though it was converted into non-agricultural residential purpose, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) was issued on 26.6.2006. 3. The Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orized the assessee to receive any earnest money or to receive advance and also the full amount and then to sign and execute and deliver the conveyances in favour of the said purchaser/purchasers or their nominee or nominees or assignee or assignees. With respect to two other properties also similar GPA was executed by Shashidhar Reddy and Rachaiah in favour of the assessee almost on the same lines. 4. From the above the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the original owners already formed the layout subsequent to the conversion of the agricultural land for non-agricultural residential purpose and the GPA was only for specific and exclusive purpose of making arrangement to sell the sites as mentioned above. The Assessing Officer held that the character of the land has already been changed. He further noted as per the conversion orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub Division, the land so converted were required to be put to the use for the purpose intended (non-agricultural) within two years from the date of the conversion order, otherwise the order was to be treated as null and void automatically. Particularly clause (10) of the conversion order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f, the assessee's version that the land was being used for non-agricultural purpose, was not justified. The Assessing Officer summoned the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub- Division, calling for the original filed in connection with the conversion of the land, for inspection. A sworn statement was recorded u/s.131 on 5.12.2007. The conversion of the land into non- agricultural purpose was confirmed again by the Assistant Commissioner. He was again asked about the specific guidelines given by the State Government while giving permission for use of agricultural land to non-agricultural use. Answering to this question, he stated that there are about 12 conditions stipulated in the conversion order issued to the assessee. He was again asked if the land is not used for the specific non-agricultural residential purposes, what would be the repercussion. Answering to this, he stated that if the land is not used for the specific purpose for which it has been converted within the stipulated period of two years from the order, conversion order is deemed to be cancelled. 6. In the instant case, Assessing Officer noticed from the case records produced by the Assistant Commissioner,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., They were also taking steps to get recognition as a deemed university. The Assessing Officer found that the lands were acquired for the purpose of running educational institutions such as nursing college, degree college and to get recognition as a deemed university which he held proves that the land was purely nonagricultural at the time of purchase by that party. Consequentially, the assessee after conversion sold it as a non-agricultural land. He further noted that the land purchased by the Tibetan Childrens' Village had constructed buildings for office premises and construction of hotel building was going on and one building for college building was also under progress. This was found out by the ITI and report by his report dt.28.12.2007 which also established the status of the land at the relevant point of time. 9. Coming to the land surrounded by or adjacent to the land in dispute whether it is urban or rural, the Assessing Officer made the following observations. He found that the land stood adjacent to well-known high traffic density state highway running between Bangalore and Mysore at about 18 kms away from the corporation limits of Bangalore and is also located i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver put to use for such converted purpose which was evident from the Government record in the form of RTC. 11. The assessee's contention was not accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He held the criteria for determination whether the land is agricultural or non-agricultural has been amplified in the treatise of Sampath Iyengar which briefly he records vide page 4 and 5 of his order. Accordingly, two tests were adumbrated in different cases, viz., (i) whether the price of land is such that no bonafide agriculturist would purchase the same at such price for genuine agricultural operations, and (ii) whether the price is such at which no prudent owner would agree to sell it even if he worked out the price on the capitalization method, taking into account its optimum yield in most favourable circumstances. In short, the price which the land fetches is an important criteria. The other criteria, is whether the land has been assessed to land revenue or not; whether agricultural activities are carried on or not; whether the land is capable of agricultural operations or not; the intention of the owner for which he is retaining the land and such intention not being fluc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner, Ramanagar Sub Division, who appeared on 5.12.2007 and stated that if the land is not used for the specific purpose within two years of conversion, the conversion shall be deemed to have been cancelled. It is further submitted the lands were not put to residential use. This is evidenced by the photographs taken by the ITI at the time of enquiry on 27.12.07 i.e., almost three years and eight months after the sale. The photographs are found at pages 67 to 69 of the department's paper book. There is no sign of residential sites having been formed. The schedule to the sale deed reproduced at pages 4 to 6 of the assessment i.e., pages 1 to 43 of the department's paper book shows that the lands are sold in the measuring form of acres and guntas and not as residential sites. The report of ITI indicates that there is no sign of layout or residential sites having been formed. These factors indicate the lands were not put to use for the purpose for which it was converted. Thus, the lands to the extent of 12 acres and 38 guntas had lost their nonagricultural status as on 28.4.01 i.e., on the completion of two years from the date of conversion order. 15. Coming to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12 the land used was to the extent of 1.38 acres and the crop grown was Ragi. So also at page 14 it is mentioned that the extent of land utilized was two acres for growing Ragi. He reiterated the submission made before the Departmental authorities that RTC form is a record issued by the Government which consistently show that there were agricultural activities going on. 16. He further submitted inviting our attention to written submission made before the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) on 21.7.2008 particularly at page 4, briefly which is as under. It was submitted that the LAO has concluded that the sites were formed for formation of layout. This conclusion is wrong for the reason if the sites had been formed by the original owners as held by the LAO at page 4 of the assessment order, the RTC records proves it wrong. Secondly, it was further submitted a very strong denial is also in the form of photographs taken by the ITI wherein one could see the construction of buildings by the Tibetan childrens' Village, but there is no evidence of any sites having been formed in the area. The photographs were taken as late as December, 2007, i.e., almost 3 and half years after the sale ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onverted to non-agricultural purposes was not put to use for the converted purpose, it retains its original status which is also evident from the statement given by the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub Division. The finding of the Assessing Officer that the data was filled year after year without verification is incorrect. The reality is that RTCs are not entered mechanically. The Village Accountants are expected to do the entries by actually carrying out the inspection in the land coming within the jurisdiction during the year. The entries in the RTC are made thereafter. The Commissioner of Income-tax(A) is wrong in confirming the finding of the Assessing Officer to the contrary. It is a government record and it cannot be simply brushed aside. It may be true in stating "...the entries in the RTC alone shall not be considered as conclusive evidence to prove the case of the assessee." In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has not rebutted that assessee carried out the cultivation activities. In the absence of any rebuttal, the recordings in the RTC and also the facts of cultivation, coupled with the lapse of two years brings back the character of agricultural land. He fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilar in the case of other assessee where they have purchased the land from various persons. Though the land was purchased on the basis of the certificate issued by the Village Accountant of Ramanagara taluk dt.22.6.2006 mentioned above, the assessee's representative submitted it is clear that the assessee was cultivating ragi, vegetables and horsegram on the land. Merely because the assessee did not disclose any income, it does not mean that the agricultural activities were not undertaken as claimed by the revenue authorities. 18. Inviting our attention to the report of the Income-tax Inspector, Ward- 3, Mandya, dt.27.12.2007, the representative submitted it is clear that even after conversion of the agricultural land into non- agricultural, assessee has not made any tax payment to Tahsildar or to the Grama Panchayat which is also clear from the letter hereinabove mentioned dt.1.3.2005. 19. Inviting our attention to the written submission at page 44, the learned representative submitted the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had not carried out any agricultural activity is wrong. While answering to question no.8, the assessee stated that the assessee ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e authorities in the case of Commissioner of Incometax v. Gemini Pictures Circuit P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 is distinguishable on facts as the Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred to Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi 127 ITR 664 (supra). In the instant case, non-agricultural taxes were collected from the Tibetan Children's Village and it was not the assessee who had paid conversion charges and penalty for failure for using the land for certified purpose. He again invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 33 ITR 466. 23. He further submitted that in the case of Prasanna Gowda, one of the assessee's before us, the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) has decided the issue in assessee's favour on facts and particularly assessee's representative relied on the decision at page 5 para 4 of his order. In this case, according to the Commissioner of Income-tax(A), the Assessing Officer considered the land as capital asset because of the orders of conversion of land for non-agricultural purpose. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) took note of clause (10) of the conversion order which shows t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m of acticultural activities other than RTC. The assessee was questioned and requested to produce the details of the crops cultivated, yield per acre, expenses incurred towards agricultural operations and the gross amount of sale proceeds on account of the sale of agricultural produce. There was no evidence forthcoming from the assessee. On the other hand, the department sufficiently established that no agricultural activities were carried out, as under : a) Conversion of land from agricultural purposes to nonagricultural purposes, i.e., development of residential layout had taken place in the Financial Year 1995-96, i.e., 10 years before the date of transfer of the land; b) The assessee has acquired the land in the Financial Year 1995- 96 by way of execution of GPA by the original landlords in favour of the assessee for the purpose of sale of sites formed by the landlord. As such, the fact has been clearly highlighted in the registered GPA without any ambiguity; c) Subsequent to conversion of the land for non- agricultural purposes, the taxes were collected by the Grama Panchayat instead of Tahashildar, indicating that no agricultural activities were conducted subsequent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is not the final word. He invited our attention to para 3.10 of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A)'s order in the case of Suresh Gowda dt.10.2.2009. The facts in para 3.10 narrated therein as under: 3.10 The Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Shri. M. V. Chandrashekar v. DCIT, Circle -2(1),Bangalore (ITA No.663/Bang/2002 dt.6.12.2002), which was also affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, decided a similar issue vide ITA No.209/2003 dt.2.1.2008. The facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist who purchased agricultural land of about 41 acres between 1977 and 1992 at Goolimangala village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk and the entire land purchased was agricultural land, which was not a converted land. The land so purchased is also in green belt area and even the assessee never applied for conversion of land use. During the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 1998-99 the assessee sold about 35 acres of land and the remaining was still with the assessee. Some plantation was made and was converted into smaller size of plots and after incurring development expenses, sold the same to different parties. The Assessing Officer held that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as under : (8) It may be construed that this converted land must be utilized for the purpose permission has been accorded within two years. (9) This order is issued as per the written agreement of the individual dt.27.7.94 and the individual is covered by agreement terms. In the event if the individual violates the terms of agreement the government is at liberty to initiate action against such individual as per the provisions of the land revenue act clause 84 of 1996. 30. In reply to the above, assessee's representative briefly submitted as under. The assessee is an agriculturist. Inviting our attention to the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) in the case of Thimme Gowda (ITA.178/B/09), he submitted the undisputed facts are that the lands are situated beyond 8 kms from the corporation limits. The lands were converted to commercial/residential usage in 1999, but was never put to use for the converted purpose. The land was used for agricultural cultivation. He further submitted that for the land to be treated as agricultural land, carrying on of agricultural activities is of paramount importance. Phani extracts was produced before the Assessing Officer to pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 1995, 1999 it was not put to use for the intended purpose within the specified period of two years from the date of conversion. Agricultural land regained the character of agricultural land in 1997, 2001 i.e., after two years. The taxes paid in respect of the land was levied as agricultural land and not as non-agricultural land. This is evidenced by phani extracts in respect of these lands which show that the taxes were levied as agricultural land and not as non-agricultural land. Evidence to this effect was also produced. 31. The learned representative for the assessee again brought our attention to the application made by the Tibetan Childrens' Village, dt.1.3.2005 in which it was stated that assessee had not made renewal application after the lapse of time and Tibetan Childrens' Village. It was they who not only paid the penalty but also got the land converted by making renewal application. If the land had been used for intended purpose, there was no need of renewal application and payment of penalty. 32. Inviting our attention to page 5 of the paper book dt.27.1.09, the assessee's representative submitted the report of the Horticultural, Agricultural and Ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of uncultivated lands, which reads as under : Section 84: Uncultivated land may be required to be cultivated.-- Where the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over any area in which any land is situated is satisfied that any land within such area has remained uncultivated for a period of not less than two consecutive years without sufficient cause, he may be notice served upon the land owner and any other person entitled to be or in possession of the land require such persons to cultivate the land within one year from the date of service of such notice. Reading of the section makes it clear that if the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area is satisfied that the land within his jurisdictional domain remained uncultivated for a period of not less than two consecutive years without sufficient cause, he may issue a notice to the land owner or to any other person entitled to be in possession of the land requiring them to cultivate the land within one year from the date of service of the notice. The case of the Department is that no such notice was issued by the competent authority. Therefore, the land was utilized for non-agricultural purpose as intended.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the officer in- charge has not verified the area physically. The material available in the hands of the assessee is enough to show the nature of the land prima facie at the time of the sale and not the use by the subsequent purchaser. In the instant case, the above facts prima facie leads to the conclusion that the character of the agricultural land has not been lost. It is true the assessee had no case that the entire land was used for agricultural activities. But the RTC certificates produced by the assessee also indicates that the lands were used for agricultural activities. However, we find that there is a specific finding by the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) in the case of Prasanna Gowda in ITA No.177/Bang/09 that 10 acres and 10 guntas of land sold on 2.6.06 converted on 2.4.06 was capital asset and he further directed to compute long -term capital gains on this sale. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) in ITA.177/Bang/2009 to this extent on facts. 34. Coming to the decision relied by the DR reported in Merchant (ZM) v. Commissioner of Income-tax - 177 ITR 512(Bom), wherein there was a specific findin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that during these years assessee had used the land for growing ragi. In the absence of contrary evidence, the evidence adduced by the assessee coupled with the Village Accountant's certificate, we have to come to a reasonable presumption that the assessee's assertion that the land was used for some kind of agricultural activity, is to be accepted. 36. Coming to the decision relied by the learned DR in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shiv Chand Satnam Paul - 231 ITR 663 (P&H), this was a case wherein the Tribunal held that the land was located within the municipal limits and does not fall within the ambit of capital asset. The Hon'ble High Court held that the Tribunal become coming to such a conclusion should have satisfied itself regarding the remaining two ingredients mentioned in Section 2(14)(iii)(a) regarding population not less than 10,000 according to the last preceding census and the land was situated in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres from the local limits. Therefore, this decision relied by the DR is not applicable to the instant case. 37. Coming to the decision reported in CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....drens' Village for the setting up of educational institutions and other related purposes. According to the assessee, the land in his hands had retained the agricultural character till the date of sale, for the reason that the assessee was doing agricultural activity. We have hereinabove in para 34 mentioned that the department had estimated the agricultural income at Rs. 53 lakhs for 2004-05 and estimated the agricultural income of the group at Rs. 56 lakhs. Therefore, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that in the hands of the assessee, the character of the land had changed. Merely because the original owners had made application to change the character of the land from agricultural to nonagricultural and certificate was issued to that effect. Even for the revenue, there is no case that the land has been used for the intended purpose. 38. In the decision of Gujarat High Court relied upon by the DR, in the case of Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi v. Commissioner of Incometax (1981) 127 ITR 664, the Hon'ble High Court held that the potential non-agricultural use does not alter the character of the land. This was a case wherein the land was purchased in 1954 and subsequ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the land revenue paid was for agricultural use of the land. In the instant case of the assessee also what was paid by the assessee was agricultural revenue. The non-agricultural revenue was paid by the subsequent purchaser after making an application for the second time to revive the nature of the land, which is evidenced by the letter dt.1.3.2005 which was written to the Secretary, Manchanayakanahally Gram Panchayat by the Tibetan Childrens' Village. In the case decided by the Hon'ble High Court, it was held that the correct test to be applied was whether on the date of sale of the land whether the land was agricultural or non-agricultural and not the intended purpose and how the purchaser was going to use the land. 39. Now, we proceed to deal with the various appeals separately, as under. ITA.1464/Bang/2008 - By the assessee, Shri. M. N. Manjunath - Assessment Year.2005-06 : 40. In the first effective ground, the assessee's grievance is that the revenue authorities were not justified in bringing to tax the income on sale of land as non-agricultural. We have elaborately dealt with this issue and given our findings in the paragraphs 33 to 38 above and we ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indings at paras 33 to 38 above wherein we have held that the revenue authorities were not justified in holding that the land sold by the assessee was not agricultural land and consequentially charging long-term capital gains on such sale. 46. Coming to the third ground which is against charging of interest u/s.234B, we hold that the Assessing Officer may give consequential relief after giving effect to our order. 47. In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed. ITA.262/Bang/2009 - By the assessee, Shri. T. Suresh Gowda - Assessment Year.2005-06 : 48. In this appeal by the assessee, the only effective ground is against charging long term capital gains on the sale of agricultural land. This ground by the assessee has been dealt with by us in the superceding common paragraphs and we have given our findings in paras 33 to 38 and also in the connected appeals of Prasanna Gowda and Manjunath. 49. In the result, appeal by the assessee on this ground is allowed. ITA.177/Bang/2009 - By the Revenue in the case of Shri. T. Prasanna Gowda - Assessment Year.2005-06 : 50. Ground no.1 is general in nature and does not call for any specific dealing as such. 51. Coming to gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax(A) to the effect that assessee was doing cultivation of ragi etc., was sufficient to treat the land as agricultural land in the hands of the assessee, particularly because in the document, the nature of the land has been recorded as non-agricultural under the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1966. While coming to the above conclusion we also held that this is a document maintained by the Government officials and treating the same as not valid in the absence of strict evidence to the contrary cannot be upheld. 55. On similar set of facts in the connected other cases, we have held that the land sold by the assessee is to be treated as agricultural land and the reasons given is applicable in the instant case of the assessee as the facts are identical. Appeal by the revenue on this ground fails. It is not contended specifically as to what were the fresh evidences filed. According to the assessee, the issue was already discussed and the evidences were before the Assessing Officer. On the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) calling for further evidence, the assessee filed letters written by the Tibetan Childrens' Village which in fact was not additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 61. In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed. 62. In the result, Assessees' appeal in ITA.1464/Bang/2008 is partly allowed; ITA.1465/Bang/2008 and ITA.262/Bang/2009 are allowed. Revenues' appeals in ITA.177 & 178/Bang/2009 and ITA.305/Bang/2009 are dismissed." 7. In the case of ITO v. Smt. K. Leelavathy & Shri T. Raghavendra Gowda in I.T.A. No. 997 & 998/Bang/2010 dated 28.02.2011, the ld. CIT(A) has found that the said land was initially converted from agricultural land to non-agricultural/residential purpose by the original owners of the land but the land o converted was required to be put to use for non-agricultural purpose within two years from the date of conversion order. But it was not so put to use and therefore, the order was to be treated as null and void automatically. He further observed that in similar case of T. Suresh Gowda, the ITAT has held that it is an agricultural land and only certain portion of the sale consideration is exigible to capital gains tax. Following the said order of the ITAT, the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the assessee's appeal. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. By ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd moreover, the assessee has declared agricultural income from their agricultural lands. The Assessing Officer accepted the agricultural income declared by the assessee during regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, but, in the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, the Assessing Officer treated the same as income from other sources merely on the ground that the assessee has not produced any bills or vouchers either for sale of produce or for purchase of seeds etc. Even now also, it is not possible to obtain any pakka bill or vouchers for the sale of agricultural produce or purchase of seeds from surrounding farmers/villagers. 10. The ld. DR could controvert the above decisions of the Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Courts. However, the ld. DR filed reply to the test to determine whether the land is agricultural or not. We have perused and find that the ld. DR admitted that out of the entire land of 46.88 acres sold, the land had banana trees and coconut trees and moreover payment of land revenue has been made. However, the ld. DR stated that no agricultural operations like tilling and ploughing of the land are carried out by the assessee. We are un....