TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.10.2024 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.05.2023 2. 233/RPR/2024 Sanjog Jhabak 31.03.2024 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 04.03.2022. 3. 234/RPR/2024 Sanjog Jhabak, L/h. Late Shri Gautam Chand Jhabak, 31.03.2024 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022. 4. 235/RPR/2024 Sushila Devi Jhabak 31.03.2024 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 29.03.2022. 5. 236/RPR/2024 Tellottama Jhabak 31.03.2024 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 29.03.2022. 6. 237/RPR/2024 Smt. Pushpa Jhabak 31.03.2024 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022. 7. 478/RPR/2024 Sampatlal Jhabak 23.10.2024 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated30.05.2023. 2. Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing, submitted that as the issues leading to the controversy involved in the captioned appeals finds its genesis in common facts involved in the said respective appeals, therefore, the same can be taken up and disposed off vide a consolidated order. Elaborating further, the Ld. AR submitted that the appeal filed in ITA No.479/RPR/2024 in the case of San....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... enquiries and investigation in relation to the issue relating to verification of claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B and further, fallaciously concluding that the conditions stipulated u/s.54B were not satisfied thereby resulting into substitution over the plausible & justified view taken by the Ld.AO clearly based upon the material on record. Hence, it is prayed that the Order passed by the Ld.PCIT under the provisions of section 263 of the Act may please be cancelled & quashed in limine. GROUND No.IV. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.PCIT has grievously erred in cancelling/modifying the re-assessment order passed by the Ld.AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.05.2023 with direction to revise the reassessment order by disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had disclosed the balance amount of LTCG at Rs. 1,37,00,107/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was, thereafter, accepted by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.05.2023. 8. The Pr. CIT after culmination of the assessment was in receipt of information, which revealed that the assessee's claim for deduction of RS. 4,76,32,950/- u/s. 54B of the Act was not found in order. Elaborating on his view, the Pr. CIT observed that the pre-condition for claim of deduction u/s. 54B. i.e. the subject land transferred by the assessee was during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer was being used by the assessee or his parents for agricultural purposes was not found to be satisfied in his case. The Pr. CIT observed that the land revenue record issued by the Village Patwari stated that no agricultural activities were conducted on the subject land during F.Y. 2009-10, F.Y. 2010-11 and F.Y. 2012-13. Further, the Pr. CIT observed that the satellite data taken by ISRO on 23.01.2010, 02.10.2011, 19.11.2011, 23.03.2012 and 29.05.2012, revealed that the usage pattern of the subject land was shown as "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ma, Liasion Officer, IIT Roorkee Development Foundation, Uttarakhand along with a report of Shri Saurabh Rathi, Raipur i.e. a Horticulturist as certified by Dean of Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. The aforesaid persons vide their respective reports had stated as under: "The image in the Google Historical imagery available for May 2012 shows that the land marked in the circle as 1 and 2 available in Google historical imagery is post harvest land. The land marked as 1 is after Kharif Crop harvest and due to the time lapse from harvest which may be around November till May the rice straw have become nominal but still visible. Whereas the land marked as 2 is also post harvest land but after Rabi crop has been harvested which may be around March. The difference in the Colour in the two images is due to Farming and Cultivation being carried on in case of place marked as 2 i.e. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvidhyala is of Rabi Crop which takes place in late November-December and March respectively. Where as the post cultivation image during May 2012 of the image marked as 1 is of Kharif Crop harvesting which would have been done around November, 2011. This is not at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same. The Pr. CIT after deliberating on the facts involved in the case before him, observed that the assessee a/w. 8 others co-owners (family members) had sold their agricultural land bearing Kh. No.246/3, 247/3, 246/128, 246/129, 247/129, 246/160, 247/160 and 248/118 in P. H. NO.113/44, situated at Village : Labhandi, Tehsil & District : Raipur (C.G.), admeasuring 5.839 acres (2.363 Hectare), vide a registered sale deed dated 21st day of August, 2012 for an aggregate sale consideration of Rs.63,76,44,328/- (the assessee's 1/9th share being Rs.7,08,49,370/-), and the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of Section 50C was found to be the same. It was further observed by him that the subject land was sold by the co-owners to a corporate entity i.e. M/s. Reliance Progressive Traders Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Raman Rati Apartment, Near Ashapura Hotel, Saru Section Road, Jamnagar, Gujarat-361 002. Apart from that, the Pr. CIT observed that the "Panchshala khasra" attached alongwith the registered sale deed clearly described the land khasra number 246/3 and 246/127 as "padath land" (i.e. barren land) for more than 5 years. Accordingly, the Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re made during the subject year. 15. Apropos the report of the Village patwari dated 03.09.2019, the Pr. CIT observed that the assessee a/w. the other co-owners (family members) had filed an application u/ss. 115 and 116 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, wherein it was stated that though they had been cultivating the subject land since long but the land revenue officials had erroneously recorded the same in their revenue records as non-agricultural land. Also, the Pr. CIT observed that the assessee had filed a copy of the order passed by Naib Tehsilder, Raipur, dated 12.03.2020 under Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 wherein the latter had observed that entry in the manual panchshala had inadvertently not been entered as paddy irrigated land. The Pr. CIT, further observed, that the official scientist of the Chhattisgarh Counsel of Science & Technology (for short "CCOST"), vide a confidential letter No.1658/CCOSP/2020, dated 06.02.2020, had submitted that the subject land as per the satellite mapping done by the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), on various dates, i.e. 23.01.2010, 02.10.2011, 19.11.2011, 29.05.2012 and 23.03.2012 was a "fallow land", meaning....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assesee, thus, the same justified the invocation of his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. 16. Apropos the merits of the case, the Pr. CIT observed that the Village patwari of the Ph. No.65, Village: Labhandi, vide his reply dated 03.09.2019, had certified that no agricultural activities on the subject land was carried out during F.Y(s).2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13, and the same were only carried out in F.Y.2011-12. Apart from that, it was observed by him that the "panchshala khasra" attached with the registered sale deed clearly described the land khasra number 246/3 and 246/127 as "padath land" for more than 5 years. Also, the Pr. CIT had drawn support from the fact that the assessee in his returns of income that were filed prior to the date of registration of the sale deed i.e. on 21.08.2012, not disclosed any agriculture income in the same. Further, the Pr. CIT to fortify his conviction that the assessee had not carried out agricultural activities on the subject land had drawn support from the fact that no cogent evidence regarding carrying out of the agricultural operations, viz. (i) proof of revenue records like chitta, khasra khatuni, panchshala; (ii) pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed on the aforementioned document, i.e. order of Naib Tahsilder, Raipur, dated 12.03.2020 was merely based on the google map and, thus, did not substantiate the fact that any agricultural activities were carried on the subject land specifically when a more scientific report stating to the contrary was available on record. 18. Apropos the assessee's claim that as per Section(s) 115, 116 & 117 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the order of Naib Tehsildar, dated 12.03.2020, wherein he had acknowledged the erroneous entries in the khasra or any other land records, was final and unquestionable in the eyes of law, the Pr. CIT did not find favour with the same. It was observed by him that Section 115 of the Land Revenue Code provided for the correction of a wrong entry in khasra and any other land records by the superior officers. It was further observed by him that Sec. 115 (supra) provided that in case if any Tahsildar found that a wrong or an incorrect entry had been made in the land records prepared u/s. 114 of the Land Revenue Code by an officer subordinate to him, then, he shall direct necessary changes to be made in "red ink" after making such inquiry from the person....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f satellite images, therefore, the support drawn by the assessee from his opinion was misplaced. Apart from that, it was observed by him that the report on the aforesaid issue that was received from CCOST, Raipur that was shared with the assessee revealed beyond doubt that no agricultural activities were carried out on the subject land during the relevant period. Also, the Pr. CIT had pressed into service the Inspector report, dated 07.02.2019, wherein it was reported by him that the subject land was not being used for the purpose of agriculture for more than 5 to 10 years. The Pr. CIT in order to strengthen his conviction of absence of any agricultural activity on the subject land in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred i.e. 21.08.2012, had obtained Google Earth Imagery for the said relevant period i.e. 21.08.2010 to 21.08.2012, pertaining to the kharif and Rabi season, which as per him established the absence of agricultural activities on the subject land i.e. on 17.05.2012 (i.e. 3 months before the date on which the land was sold). The Pr. CIT after objectively analyzing the aspect, i.e. as to whether or not agricultural operations were carrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. 23. Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Ld. AR for the assessee assailed the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 based on his two fold contentions, viz. (i) that the Pr. CIT had grossly erred in law and facts of the case by traversing beyond the scope of the revisional jurisdiction vested with him u/s.263 of the Act; and (ii) that the Pr. CIT had based on his perverse observations concluded that the assessee a/w. 8 other coowners (family members) had not carried out agricultural operations on the subject land in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the said land was transferred. 24. Apart from that, the Ld. AR has assailed the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act regarding the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by him for passing an order u/s. 263 of the Act, which in turn, was based on the multi-facet issues therein involved, viz. (i) as the order passed by the A.O u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.03.2023 was in itself i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the assessee was a "fallow land" that was in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred was not used for agricultural purposes, but the A.O while passing the reassessment order had lost sight of the aforesaid material aspects, and had without carrying out any verification allowed the assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, therefore, the Pr. CIT had rightly exercised his revisional jurisdiction and set-aside the reassessment order u/s 263 of the Act. 26. The Ld. AR has assailed before us the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 by primarily focusing on two material aspects, viz. (a) that as the assessee a/w. 8 other co-owners (family members) were using the subject land for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred, therefore, the Pr. CIT had wrongly concluded that the said pre-condition entitling the assessee for claiming deduction u/s. 54B of the Act was not found to have been satisfied; and (b) that the Pr. CIT had exceeded the jurisdiction that was vested with him u/s. 263 of the Act and dislodged the well-reasoned order of reasse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this subsection shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner does not agree. Accordingly, where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view and the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by the A.O, the assessment order cannot be treated as an order erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Sec. 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its aforesaid order, had held, that the Commissioner of Income Tax while exercising the revisional jurisdiction is not sitting in appeal. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court are culled out as under: "........As is clear from the language of the provision, there has to be a proper application of mind by the Commissioner to come to a firm conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Thus, two conditions need to be satisfied for invoking such a power by the Commissioner, which are: (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests, of the Revenue. At the same time, this court has also laid down that this provision can-not be invoked to correct eac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest of the Revenue unless the view taken by the A.O is unsustainable in law. In the aforesaid case before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the assessee in the course of survey proceedings conducted at his business premises was found in possession of excess stock which was surrendered by him as his income. The A.O while framing the assessment called upon the assessee to explain as to why the excess stock may not be treated as his unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act and brought to tax as per the special rates provided in Section 115BBE of the Act. As the reply of the assessee that the excess stock found in the course of survey proceedings was recorded in his books of account for the subject year, thus, Section 69 of the Act would not be attracted found favour with the A.O, therefore, he accepted the same. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT after culmination of the assessment proceedings, held that as the A.O had failed to treat the excess stock found during the course of survey proceedings as the assessee's unexplained investment and subjected the same to tax as per the special rates u/s. 115BBE of the Act, therefore, the same had rendered the assessment order passed by him as er....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counts of the concerned year and thus, Section 69 of the IT Act would not be attracted to the assessee Company, as excess stock would not be treated as undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 69, which the AO has accepted and taken it as one of the possible views and which the ITAT has accepted holding to be the correct view. 18. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that both the twin conditions, namely, the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous and it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, are not satisfied at all to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act, as the Assessing Officer has passed the order of assessment after conducting inquiry. As such, the learned PCIT is absolutely unjustified in invoking the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act which has rightly been set-aside by the ITAT." 32. Also, we find that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), had held, that the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot revise the order merely because he disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the A.O. The Hon'ble High Court, obse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, resulting in the loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. In other words, the Commissioner cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction for the purpose of substituting his view as against that arrived at by the A.O. 35. Also, we may herein observe that though the "Explanation-2" to Section 263 of the Act (as had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015), inter alia, contemplates that if, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the order is passed by the A.O without making inquiries or verification which should have been made, then the order so passed shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, but the same cannot be triggered in case where the A.O had carried out inquiry/verification, however, inadequate. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Bramha Centre Development Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 116 & 118/2021, dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 23.03.2023, inter alia, called upon the assessee to substantiate based on supporting evidence that the subject land sold was used for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023 (annexure to the notice: relevant extract) is culled out as under: "1. Please furnish the evidence in support of the claim u/s 54B that the land sold was utilized for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years. 2. Supporting documents for exemption claimed u/s.54F 3. Proof for investment in REC bond 4. Proof for deposit of Capital gain account 5. Details of the residential house owned by you at the time of transfer of the asset." (emphasis supplied by us) In reply, we find that the assessee vide his submission filed/uploaded with the A.O on 08.04.2023, had rebutted the aforesaid adverse inferences that were sought to be drawn based on the report on the satellite data images that was prepared by the Chhattisgarh Space Applications Centre, Chhattisgarh Council of Science & Technology (CCOST) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wherein the images were extracted pertains to the months of January, October, November, February & May and it is an indubitable fact on record as uncontrovertedly & unflinchingly evident from the Agricultural Records viz. the Patwari Records of the Revenue Department of Chhattisgarh that the crop cultivated on the said lands were recorded as "Paddy" in respect of Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 by them which is a 'Kharif' Season Crop and no other crop was taken (such as 'Rabi' Crop) during the assessment years determinative of the nature of crops sown, It is further submitted that the main rice growing season in the state of Chhattisgarh is the 'Kharif' season. It is known as winter rice as per the harvesting time. The state is comprised with three agroecological zones i.e. Chhattisgarh plains (applicable in the instant case), Bastar plateau and northern hill region of surguja, These zones have huge variations in terms of soil topography, rainfall intensity and distribution, irrigation and adoption of agricultural production system and thus varies in the productivity of rice in these regions. The sowing time of winter (kharif) rice is June-July and it is harvested (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reason that as per the satellite data taken by ISRO on 23.03.2012, 02.10.2011, 19.11.2011, 29.05.2012 and 23.01.2010, the usage pattern of the subject land was shown as "fallow land" and there was no change in the said land usage during the corresponding period. It was observed by him that as the A.O had failed to properly examine the aforesaid issue while allowing the assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, therefore, the same had rendered the assessment order passed by him u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.05.2023 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s. 263 of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the relevant extract of the "SCN", dated 18.04.2024 of the Pr. CIT is culled out, as under: ".........Further, as per the satellite data taken by ISRO on 23.01.2010, 02.10.2011, 19.11.2011, 23.03.2012 and 29.05.2012 shows that the said land usage pattern is "fallow land" and there was no change in land use during the corresponding period. This fortifies the fact that the land was not used for agriculture purpose for period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer which violates the provision of section 54B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upon by the assessee. 43. We have given a thoughtful consideration and are of the considered view that the satellite data taken by ISRO regarding the subject land on certain specific dates, i.e. on 23.03.2012, 02.10.2011, 19.11.2011, 29.05.2012 and 23.01.2010, along with the report of the CCOST, Raipur, which after analyzing the aforementioned satellite images had reported that the subject land was not used for agricultural purpose, had, inter alia, formed the very basis for reopening of the concluded assessment of the assessee which was earlier framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 21.03.2016. As observed by us hereinabove, the aforesaid facts can safely be gathered on a perusal of the information that was shared by the A.O with the assessee u/s. 148A(b) of the Act, wherein the latter was called upon to explain as to why notice u/s. 148 of the Act may not be issued in his case, Page 160-161 of APB. As the aforesaid issue had, inter alia, formed a basis for reopening of the concluded assessment of the assessee, therefore, the A.O, vide his notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023 had specifically called upon the assessee to substantia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clearly depicted that on the subject land agricultural activities were being carried out. 45. Be that as it may, we find that the aforementioned documents which had, inter alia, formed the very basis for the Pr. CIT to conclude that the subject land in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred was not used for agricultural purposes is based on the same documents/material as were available with the A.O at the time of reopening of the concluded assessment of the assessee, viz. (i). satellite images obtained from ISRO; and (ii). report of the CCOST, Raipur. Apart from that, we find that, the A.O in the course of reassessment proceedings vide notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, Page 219 to 221 of APB, had specifically called upon the assessee to place on record documents which would support his claim that the subject land was used for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred and, thus, his claim of deduction u/s. 54B was in order. Also, the assessee considering the fact that adverse inferences as regards his claim of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act were sought to be drawn by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s. 54B was thereafter drawn by the A.O. We, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, are unable to comprehend, that now when the AO had queried the assessee on the aforesaid issue which had a material bearing on his claim for deduction u/s 54B of the Act, and further, deliberated upon the latter's reply and the supporting documents, then on what basis the Pr. CIT had observed that the A.O while framing the assessment had failed to examine the said claim for deduction in the backdrop of the aforesaid reports. On the contrary, we are of the view that the Pr. CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction had sought to substitute the view that was arrived at by him by analyzing the satellite imageries provided by ISRO and the CCOST report, as against the plausible view that was arrived at by the A.O after carrying out necessary verifications, inquiries and deliberations. We are afraid that seeking of such substitution of view by the Pr. CIT falls beyond the scope and realm of the revisional jurisdiction vested with him under Section 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view that the Pr. CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction cannot sit as an appellate authority and seek substi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved by us hereinabove, the A.O had, thereafter, in the course of the reassessment proceedings, vide notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023 called upon the assessee to furnish evidence that the subject land in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred used for agricultural purposes and, thus, his claim of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act was in order, Page 221 of APB. As the A.O had sought to dislodge the assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, i.e. allegedly for the reason that the subject land, inter alia, based on the manual report of the Village patwari, dated 03.09.2019 (supra) was in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred not used for agricultural purposes, thus, the assessee had vide his reply dated 08.04.2023, Page 367 to 371 of APB rebutted the same and had substantiated his claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act by drawing support from, viz. (i) patwari report/panchshala wherein it was stated by him that the google earth map drawn on 05.12.2010 revealed the "post- harvest" situation of the land; (ii) computerized land revenue records; and (iii) order dated 12.03.2020 passed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g rightly reflected and registered in online B-1 khasra in all the years but merely owing to a clerical mistake/nonupdation of the entries in the manual records of the patwari that the cultivation of paddy or agricultural activities had wrongly been shown as "Padati Bhumi". The Naib Tehsildar (supra), had thereafter, based on the plenary powers conferred upon him u/ss. 115 and 116 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, ordered that in respect of the subject agricultural land, in place of "Padati Bhumi", the crop cultivated should have been recorded as "paddy" in the revenue records for F.Y.2010-11. At the same time, it was observed by him that as there was no provision to update the revenue records, therefore, the said case was being filed. 53. Accordingly, the assessee to rebut the adverse inferences which the A.O had sought to draw to dislodge the assessee's claim for deduction u/s.54B of the Act, i.e. the manual Patwari report, dated 03.09.2019 (supra), wherein it was, inter alia, stated that the subject land was not used for agricultural purposes during F.Y.2010-11, had filed exhaustive submissions and documents proving to the contrary, viz. (i) computerized land reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Panchanama and other contemporaneous evidences etc., the Ld. Nayab Tahsildar, District Raipur in Revenue Case No.8-121/Year 2019-20 in the case of Gautam Chand Jhabak & Others. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh vide his Order Dated 12th March, 2020 stoutly & specifically held That is to say, on the basis of Statements, Patwari Report/Panchanama, Computerized Land Revenue Records certified by the Patwari at the relevant time & attached with the registered deeds, it is found that the at Kh.No.246/3, 247/3, 246/128, 247/128, 246/129, 247/129, 246/1E 247/160, 248/118, 246/121, 247/121, 246/120, 247/120, 246/122, 247/122 etc. at Village Labhandih was being cultivated since long (Cultivation of Paddy duly registered in the Patwari Records for the Year 2011-12) and the factum of cultivation of paddy has been rightly reflected & registered in Online B-1 Khasra in all the years all along and merely owing to clerical mistake/nonupdation when making entries in Record Roster of Patwari, the cultivation of Paddy or agricultural activity has been fallaciously recorded as "Padati" Bhumi and after consideration of the entire conspectus of the case before him, in view of the plenary pow( conferred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of mistake in fallaciously recording the subject land as "Padati Bhumi" due to a clerical mistake/non-updation of the manual records of the patwari was referred to and corrected, had arrived at a possible and plausible view that pursuant to the aforesaid subsequent developments i.e. the computerized land revenue records and the Naib Tehsildar order, dated 12.02.2020 the "manual report" of the Patwari, dated 03.09.2010 could not be given credence and relied upon, thus, accepted the assessee's claim that the subject land was used for agricultural purposes i.e. for cultivation of "paddy crop" in F.Y.2010-11. 55. At this stage, it would be relevant to point out that though the A.O in the body of the assessment order had not vociferously spelled out his aforesaid observation, i.e. agricultural operations were carried out on the subject land in F.Y.2010-11, but cannot remain oblivion of the fact that he had vide his notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023 (supra) called upon the assessee to substantiate, based on the supporting documents, that the subject land in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred used for agricultural purposes. Thereafter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urse of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examines numerous issues. Generally, the issues which are accepted do not find mention in the assessment order and only such points are taken note of on which the assessee's explanations' are rejected and additions/disallowances are made. As already observed, we have examined the records of the case and find that the Assessing Officer had made full inquiries before accepting the claim of the assessee qua the amount of Rs. 10 lacs on account of discrepancy in stock. Not only this, he has even gone a step further and appended an office note with the assessment order to explain why the addition for allegation discrepancy in stock was not being made. In the absence of any suggestion by the CIT as to how the inquiry was not proper, we are unable to uphold the action taken by him under Section 263 of the Act." (emphasis supplied by us) 56. Once again, we are of a firm conviction that the A.O in the present case had after considering the reply filed by the assessee, wherein he had in the course of reassessment proceedings rebutted/dispelled the adverse inferences which the A.O had sought to draw as regards his claim of de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ient material before him which would substantiate the assessee's claim that the subject land in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred was utilized for agricultural purposes, i.e. a pre-condition for claiming deduction u/s. 54B of the Act. However, we find that the A.O in order to dispel all doubts and arrive at an irrefutable view on the issue in hand, i.e. as to whether or not the subject land in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred used for agricultural purposes, therein, sought for a physical verification of the subject land by making a reference to the A.O, Verification Unit, Raipur ["A.O (VU)", for short]. 58. As is discernible from the record the A.O (VU), had thereafter, issued summons u/s. 131(1) of the Act, dated 22.04.2023 to the assessee, viz. Shri Sanket Jhabak, Page 224 to 226 of APB, wherein he was, inter alia, called upon to substantiate based on corroborative material his claim that the subject land was used for agricultural purposes during the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred. Also, the A.O (VU) had informed the assessee that the matter was assigned t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and growing paddy for "Jhabak family". Also, it was stated by him that after the land was sold by the assessee/co-owners, the present owner had thereafter not carried out agricultural activities on the subject land. It was further stated by him that presently he was serving in the capacity as that of a security guard on the subject land of the present owner. 60. The A.O (VU) after recording the statements of the assessee, viz. Shri Sanjay Jhabak, Shri Hrithram Nishad i.e. the erstwhile care taker of the subject land, and perusing the documents that were filed by the assessee before him etc., vide his "Physical Verification Report", dated 03.05.2023, concluded that the subject land was used for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred i.e. F.Y.2010-11 and F.Y 2011-12. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the A.O(VU) recorded in the "Physical Verification Report", dated 03.05.2023 is culled out as under: (relevant extract) "During Physical Verification Proceedings, on visiting the above land, we have met with Shri Hrithram Nisad, Ex Serviceman, security person from J.B Security Corporation appointed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ographs of the site, consulting the records as were filed before him, and deliberating upon the documents that were filed by the assessee with him, had concluded that the subject land was used for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred. 61. We, thus, based on our aforesaid observations hold a firm conviction that not only the view taken by the A.O on the issue in hand, i.e. the subject land in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the same was transferred used for agricultural purposes is supported by, viz. (i) the computerized land revenue records certified by patwari based on the google map drawn on 05.12.2010; (ii) Naib Tehsildar, Raipur, order dated 12.03.2020; (iii) opinion of Shri Saurabh Rathi (supra), but in fact, the department itself, i.e. the A.O (VU) who had based on his necessary inquiries/verifications/recording of statements and carrying out physical inspection of the site vide his "Physical Verification Report", dated 03.05.2023, had concurred with and accepted the assessee's claim. Considering the fact that the A.O(VU) in his "Physical Verification Report" (supra) had based on his i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected to the project, inter alia, for the reason that the project area was a forest area and felling of the trees violated Section 2(ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The applicants to support their claim that there used to be a forest at the project site had relied upon, viz. (i) report of the Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF) that was based on site inspection and the google image; and (ii) Forest Survey of India (FSI) Report based on satellite imagery. On the other hand, as per the revenue records, none of the khasras (plots) falling in the project area was ever shown as a jungle or forest, banjar (uncultivable) or parti land (uncultivated). Also, the records of the land acquisition between the years 1980 to 1983, complemented the revenue record of 1952 in which the lands were shown as agricultural and not as jungle or forest. 64. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering the aforesaid facts in the backdrop of the material available before them, had observed, that the satellite images may not always reveal a complete story. Also, it was observed that there was no justifiable reason for not giving credence to the "revenue records" since the same pertained to a time when the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iction of the revisional authority cannot be exercised for seeking dislodging of a possible and plausible view taken by the A.O after carrying out necessary inquiries and verifications, for the reason, that the revisional authority is of the view that the documents/material ought to have been looked into and analyzed by the A.O in a different manner. In our view, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction based on a conviction that the documents/material ought to have been looked into and analyzed by the A.O not in the manner that was adopted by the latter for arriving at a possible and plausible view, but in a manner of choice advocated by the revisional authority, will be nothing short of seeking of substitution of the view of the revisional authority by imposing the manner of analyzing of the documents/material as desired by him as against that adopted by the A.O i.e. a quasi-judicial authority, for arriving at a possible and plausible view, which, as observed by us at length hereinabove is not permissible as per the mandate of law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in, viz. (i) CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC); (ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sult, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 19th day of February, 2025. ============= Document 1 6. इस पà¥à¤°à¤•à¤¾à¤° आवेदकगण दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ पà¥à¤°à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤ आवेदन, दसà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤µà¥‡à¤œ, पटवारी पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿à¤µà¥‡à¤¦à¤¨, आवेदक दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ पà¥à¤°à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤ आदेश 18 नियम 04 वà¥à¤¯à¤µà¤¹à¤¾à¤° पà¥à¤°à¤•à¥à¤°à¤¿à¤¯à¤¾ संहिता के तहत शपथ पूरà¥à¤µà¤• कथन का अवलोकन à¤à¤µà¤‚ परिशीलन से यह सà¥à¤ªà¤·à¥à¤Ÿ है à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¾à¤‚चसाला वरà¥à¤· 2010-11 में तातà¥à¤•à¤¾à¤²à¥€à¤¨ हलà¥à¤•à¤¾ पटवारी दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ फसल पà¥à¤°à¤µà¤¿à¤·à¥à¤Ÿà¤¿ कॉलम में धनहा सिंचित à¤à¥‚मि का à¤à¥‚लवश/तà¥à¤°à¥à¤Ÿà¤¿à¤µà¤¶ इनà¥à¤¦à¥à¤°à¤¾à¤œ नहीं हो पाया है। अतः आवेदक कथन, पटवारी पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿à¤µà¥‡à¤¦à¤¨, तातà¥à¤•à¤¾à¤²à¥€à¤¨ पटवारी दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤¤à¥à¤¤ कमà¥à¤ªà¥à¤¯à¥‚टरीकृत खसरा वरà¥à¤· 2010-11 à¤à¤µ....