Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2023 (4) TMI 856

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d counsel for the assessee now before us stated that the above delay comes within the ambit of exclusion provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of Covid Pandemic-19 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.665 of 2021 vide order dated 23.03.2020 had given directions that delay is to be condoned during the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and finally condoned delay upto 28.02.2022 in Misc. Application No.21 of 2022 vide order dated 10.01.2022. Since, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condoned delay during the said period, respectfully following the same, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The first issue in this appeal of the assessee is as regards to order of the CIT(A) confirming disallowance of payments made belatedly on account of employees contribution of ESI & PF under respective statutes. 4. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts are that the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has made delayed payment being payments on account of PF & ESI of employees contribution i.e., ESI amounting to Rs.1,17,707/- and PF contribution of Rs.8,79,124/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s situated in Kodigenahalli Village in Hindupur Municipality. The assessee stated that this land is 4 kms. away from local limits of Hindupur Municipality when measured aerially and population of this village as per 2011 census is 3560 which satisfy conditions mentioned in section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and hence, it is an agricultural land. Apart from this, the assessee submitted a certificate dated 07.03.2014 issued by Panchayat Secretary, Grama Panchayath, Kodigenahalli. The assessee also stated that in earlier years crops like maize, pomegranate, orange, and lime were cultivated in this land. It was contended by the assessee that water from bore well was used for watering these plants due to non-availability of general water supply in this area. According to the assessee, above said land satisfies the condition as agricultural land, in view of the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and hence, not a capital asset. The Assessing Officer noted provision for section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and stated that as per certificate of Panchayat Secretary, Grama Panchayath, Kodigenahalli village dated 07.03.2014, the land is situated at a distance of 4 kms from Hindupur Municipal limi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd situated as prescribed in provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The learned counsel referred to relevant provisions and stated that provisions of section 2(14)(iii) (a) applies to the assessee for the reason that interpretation of sub-clause (a) to section 2(14)(iii) categorically states that population of not less than ten thousand is to be considered of that village and in the present case the village falls under Panchayath, Kodigenahalli. According to the counsel, in the present case, admitted fact is that Panchayat Secretary, Grama Panchayath, Kodigenahalli has issued a certificate that population of this village i.e Kodigenahalli in Hindupur Municipality as per 2011 census is 3560, which is much below ten thousand. Ld Counsel for the assessee accordingly stated that as per section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act the village population is to be considered for ascertaining whether the land is capital asset or not. In support of this, learned counsel for the assessee relied on the following case laws:- i) PCIT Vs Anthony John Pereira reported in (2020) 425 ITR 134(Bom) vide order dated 04.02.2020 ii) CIT Vs P.J.Thomas (1995) 211 ITR 897 in Tax Case Appeal No.553 of 1992 vi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n India, not being land situate- (a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population of not less than ten thousand ; or (b) in any area within the distance, measured aerially,- (I) not being more than two kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a) and which has a population of more than ten thousand but not exceeding one lakh; or (II) not being more than six kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a) and which has a population of more than one lakh but not exceeding ten lakh; or (III) not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a) and which has a population of more than ten lakh. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-clause, "population" means the population according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of th....