TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 1193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri K.K. John, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee sold land situated in Kinalur and Kanthalad village in Quilandi Taluk, Kozhikode District. The assessee claimed that the property was agricultural land subjected to cultivation, therefore, exempt from capital gain tax. However, the assessing officer found that the land was sold for non agricultural purpose for construction of industrial estate to Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation (KSIDC, hereinafter), therefore, the subject matter of the land may not be treated as agricultural land. Referring to the agreement said to be executed by the assessee and KSIDC, the ld.DR submitted that the subject matter of land is a rubber estate and that the assessee had to cut and remove all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....suance to the notice issued u/s 148 declaring a loss of Rs. 1,99,55,320 and the re-assessment was completed on 22-03-2002. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) cancelled the assessment on the ground that reopening is invalid. On further appeal by the revenue before this Tribunal the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed holding that the notice issued u/s 143(2) was beyond the period of one year, therefore, the assessment proceedings is invalid. The matter was carried before the High Court by the revenue. The High Court found that in view of section 153(2), the assessee cannot challenge the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of this Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ji Bench) in the case of CIT vs Minguel Chandra Pais and Another (2006) 282 ITR 618 (Bom); and the judgment of the of the Madras High Court (2007) 292 ITR 481 (Mad). The ld.representative has also placed his reliance on the judgment of the various High Courts and submitted that the land was actually under cultivation till the date of sale, therefore, the CIT(A) rightly found that the sale proceeds of agricultural land is not liable for taxation. 6. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. From the material available on record, the assessee sold 308.08 acres of land in Kinalur and Kanthalad village to KSIDC. The assessee claimed that the subject land sold to KSIDC is agricu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se and user and not the mere possibility of user of land by some possible future owner or possessor for an agricultural purpose. The Supreme Court further found that it is not the mere potentiality which will only affect its valuation as part of asset. But it is actual condition and intended user which has to be seen for the purpose of exemption. The Apex Court has also found that the object of exemption is to encourage cultivation or actual utilisation of the land for agricultural purpose and the entries in revenue records are good prima facie evidence. In view of the above judgment of the Apex court, the land in question has to be used earlier for agricultural activities and agricultural purpose. The possibility of using the land for agri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be examined on its own facts. 9. Let us now examine the facts of the case in the present appeal. Admittedly, the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity of growing and cultivating rubber trees. The subject land in question is also is a rubber plantation. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the land sold by the assessee is actually used for agricultural purpose / activities. The contention of the revenue is that as per the agreement said to be entered into with KSIDC on 01-12-1995 the assessee has to cut and remove the standing rubber and other trees on the land and thereafter hand over the possession to KSIDC. The revenue also contends that the purpose of acquiring the land by KSIDC is to establish an industrial estate. Standin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icultural purpose before the sale of the land. The subject matter of the land was not cultivated four years before the date of the sale. The land was situated in Surat Municipality. The land was sold at square yard rate. In these circumstances, the Apex Court found that the assessee had no intention to bring the land under cultivation four years before the date of sale, i.e. after 1965-66. Therefore, the Apex Court found that the subject matter of the land is not agricultural land. In this case, the facts are entirely different. When the assessee entered into agreement for sale of the land on 01-12-1995 rubber plantation cultivated by the assessee was very much in existence and the land was used for agricultural purpose. The land was not so....