TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 915
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gricultural land in the A.Y. 2012-13 without appreciating the fact that the long term capital gain had accrued to the assessee in the Asst. Year 2011-12 and the same had already been correctly disclosed in the computation and return of income. (b) That in addition to the AY 2012-13 the AO had also assessed the case of assessee for the AY 2011-12 wherein the assessee had offered his income from Long Term Capital Gain arising out of sale of urban agricultural land. The returned income of the assessee was accepted by the AO without rejecting the income from Long Term Capital Gain. Hence the same income cannot be assessed twice. (c) That the AO had wrongly interpreted the judgement of Apex Court held in the case of Balbir Singh Maini which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer. The satisfaction was recorded and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 20.03.2018. Incompliance to the notice, the assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 28.05.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 78,910/-. After taking cognizance of the reply of the assessee the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,07,93,900/- as Long Term Capital Gain. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist who derives his income mainly from the agricultural activities. During the A.Y. 2011-12 the assessee sold his 1/4th share of ancestral urban agricultural land co-ow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essing Officer primarily relied upon the judgment of Balbir Singh Maini arising out of Civil Appeal No. 15619/2017. Consequently a huge addition of Rs. 1,07,93,900/- was made resulting into a tax demand of Rs. 39,86,910/-. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in determining the Long Term Capital Gain from sale of urban agricultural land in A.Y. 2012-13 without appreciating the fact that the Long Term Capital Gain had accrued to the assessee in the A.Y. 2011-12 and the same had already been correctly disclosed in the computation and return of income. In the instant case the sale deed was registered on 27.04.2011 and therefore, the Assessing Officer held that the same was taxable in A.Y. 2012-13 and not 2011-12, but the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....individual. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that all the relevant documents were produced before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the following decision: * Ajay Kumar Shah Jagati v. CIT (2008) 168 Taxman 53 (SC) * Jasbir Singh Sarkaria, (2007) 164 Taxman 108 * Bertha T. Almeida v. ITO (2015) 53 taxmann 522 * S. Gurucharan Singh Anand (1993) 45 ITD 299 (JP) * CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 100 (SC) * Sanjeev Lal vs. CIT (2014) 46 TAXMANN.COM 300 (SC) * Rukmani Devi Agarwal vs. ITO (ITA 557/JP/2018) * ACIT vs. S. Balasundaram (ITA 1832/Mds/2012) 6. The Ld. D.R. submitted that since the sale deed was registered in A.Y. 2012-13 the same cannot be taken into account for A.Y. 2011-12 but in the ....