TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1), dated 11/09/2023 arising out of the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] for the AY 2018-19. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary, business in transport and interest on loans. The assessee has e-filed his return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 04/10/2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 38,58,050/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,65,91,420/-. Initially, the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 28/09/2020. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) dated 19/12/2019, 23/01/2020, 18/8/2020 & 01/03/2021 calling for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,864/- and passed the assessment order dated 23/04/2021. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, after considering the submissions of the assessee, and on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, granted part relief to the assessee and partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and f acts of the case in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,63,82,490/- and treating the same as income from business. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred in confirming the above addition fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h was purchased by the assessee in the year 1992 and the same was sold by the assessee in the year 2016 after a long gap of 24 years and therefore, the income should be assessable under the capital gains but not under the head 'income from business'. The Ld. AR further submitted that it is an agricultural land however, the assessee has not claimed the entire exemption but the assessee has pleaded only for relief in computation for treating it as capital gains. However, the Ld. AO erroneously treated the same as business income of the assessee. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mohammed Mohideen [1989] 176 ITR 393 (Mad.); CIT, Madras vs. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd [1966] 62 ITR 578 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td (supra) has held as under: "............A sale of immovable property may possible be a trading or commercial transaction, but need not necessarily be so...... If a land-owner developed his land, expended money on it, laid roads, converted the land into house sites and with a view to get a better price for the land, eventually sold the plots for a consideration yielding a surplus, it could hardly be said that the transaction is anything more than a realisation of a capital investment or conversion of one form of asset into another. Obviously, the surplus in such a case will not be trading or business profit because the transaction is one of realisation of asset in investment rather than one in the course of trade carried on by th....