TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 30.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee returning agricultural income at Rs. 360.64 lakhs, besides total income of Rs. 39.31 lakhs, the same was selected for being subject to the verification procedure under the Act, to examine, inter alia, agricultural income. The said income, as it transpired, was in fact the assessee's share (i.e., corresponding to 38.35 ares) in the 'long-term capital gain' on the sale of 54.10 ares of land jointly owned by the assessee with his daughter, for Rs. 376.41 lakhs,on 16.02.2015. The assessee, in the assessment proceedings, contended the distance of the subject land from the local limits of the Angamally Municipality to be more than 2 kms,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation 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 the previous year; In appeal, the assessee filed evidence from Kerala State Remote Sensing Environment Centre (KSREC), an accredited agency, showing the distance under reference at less than 2 kms., admitting which, his appeal was allowed, so that, aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... opportunity to furnish evidence, admission of which is being called into question? No doubt, the assessee furnished no evidence in support of his claim before him, but the fact of the matter is that the assessment is based on materials, to examine and rebut which no opportunity was allowed to the assessee. The claim of violation of r. 46A(1), valid in principle, does not under the circumstances survive; there being clearly a denial of natural justice in framing the assessment. The admission of additional evidence by the ld. CIT(A), whose powers are co-terminus with the assessing authority, is thus valid, and the Revenue's case qua violation of r. 46A to no consequence. 4.2 On merits, however, we, however, find the adjudication by the ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also fails to observe that no contemporaneous evidence exhibiting the distance, despite being repeatedly called for, was provided during the assessment proceedings, so that the assessee's case before the AO was unproved. How could the AO be faulted with? The ld. CIT-DR was in fact at pains to explain us the assessee's recalcitrant attitude before him, not furnishing the relevant information/material for months, to no rebuttal by Ms. Ravindran. It is, after all, only on the basis of some material that the assessee, obliged by law to prove his return and the claims preferred thereby, would have made his claim of distance being over 2 kms? The only material furnished by the assessee, however, is dated 20.06.2018 (DPB pgs. 20, 21), i.e., in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the AO, and on the basis of which exemption had been claimed, stands complicated. Distance measured w.r.t. the longitude and latitude coordinates of the subject land, as well as the extant local limits of the Angamally Municipality, would only be regarded as valid. And which we think should, given the technology available, a simple matter of feeding both the set of coordinates in the relevant software, admitting of no more than a single reading. Yes, even as observed by the Bench during hearing, two issues need to be addressed here, on both of which orders of the Revenue authorities are silent. One; as the distance would vary with reference to different points on the boundary of the land, as well as the local limits of the Municipali....