TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 336
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ground 3- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case& in the law, order of the CIT-A is invalid and violates principal of natural justice as CIT-A has not adjudicated Ground No 1 to 4 of the appellant which are crucial grounds of appeals. Ground 4- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in the law, the CIT-A has erred in Confirming addition of Rs. 2,74,53,736/- without considering submission by the appellant, without demanding any report from AO and solely on the basis of assessment order. Ground 5- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case& in the law, the CIT-A NFAC was justified in deciding the appeal for 50% of the transaction value without considering decisions in the case of Spouse of appellant (In whose case 50% value was covered) by CIT-A NFAC and Hon. Pune ITAT which was in the knowledge of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer? Ground 6- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case& in the law the CIT-A has erred in decided a question which was not raised either in the grounds of appeal or by the AO and such action is not permissible under the law. Ground 7- Whether on the facts and in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....response thereto, the assessee filed its reply along with copies of certain documents such as 7/12 extracts of the land sold, MOA of the purchaser, copy of Google Map indicating location of the impugned land, population data of Shahapur town etc. 4. Before the Ld. AO, the assessee submitted that he has 50% share in the above said immovable properties sold by the assessee and that the land sold is not a capital asset as it is a agricultural land at the time of sale and even till date it is not used/converted for any non-agricultural purposes. It was further contended that sale for the purpose of prospective non- agricultural use does not alter the character of the land. The fact that the land in question was purchased by a developer cannot be a determining factor for treating the land to be converted for any purposes. 5. The Ld. AO was of the opinion that as per section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, 1948, the sale of agricultural land is not valid if it is sold to non-agriculturist. Applying the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim & Others, 204 ITR 631 (SC), the Ld. AO concluded that the agricultural land sol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paying stamp duty again on non-agricultural value in future, if the property is classified as non-agricultural, the amount of stamp duty as per non- agricultural valuation as on date of agreement of sale i.e. 24.10.2010 is being paid by the purchasing company. The said deeds of agreement of sale also mentioned that since the purchasing company is itself a farmer and purchasing the property for purpose for residence and commercial purpose, it is not required to take permission from the Industrial Commissioner u/s. 63A of Maharashtra Revenue Act. 3.10 Following the above stated facts in the documents, the first observation of the Assessing Officer that there was a violation of section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act 1948 does not stand good. However, the Assessing Officer also mentioned the case law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 204 ITR 631, which held that if the agricultural land was sold for non-agricultural purpose, there cannot be any exemption for capital gains tax. 3.11 The assessee during the appellate stage has given a comparative chart of facts of the mentioned Supreme Court decision and the facts of the appellant's case, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se the land for non-agricultural purpose and therefore it was ready to pay additional stamp duty as applicable for non-agricultural purpose. It is true that as per certificate issued by the Tahsilder even up to July, 2016 there is no activity on behalf of the purchaser to initiate any activity for construction of residence and commercial building. However, the mere fact that the intention was not to engage in farming was crystal clear from the documentary evidences. The purchasing company did not engage the land for any agricultural purpose is also from clear as there was no such claim made by either of the parties. 3.13 Therefore, I fully agree that the sold properties are not exempted capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Act. Therefore, I hold no hesitation in accepting the decision of the Assessing Officer that the sold property was not agricultural property and therefore it is clearly liable for capital gains tax. Now once it is decided that the sold property is in the nature of land or building the attraction of section 50C is clearly inevitable and as per such provision of the Act the value of the sale consideration has to be accepted as per the valuation made o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... AO to delete the addition of Rs.2,74,53,736/- (being 50% of the value of impugned transaction) in the hands of the assessee's spouse. 8.1 The assessee in Smita Ashok Sonawane's case had raised the following effective ground of appeal : "i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC was justified in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,74,53,736/- ignoring the applicability of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim & Others 204 ITR 63i(SC), the agricultural land sold for non- agricultural purpose cannot be exempt for capital gain tax." 9. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 10. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties, perused the material on record and paper book filed by the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee jointly with his wife sold the impugned land to one company, named Prospective Estate and Realty Logical Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vide registered agreement for sale dated 24.10.2012. We find that in the Revenue's appeal in the case of the spouse of the assessee, i.e. ITO Vs. Smita Ashok So....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n similar issue, your kind direction is solicited u/s 144A of the IT Act, 1961 for finalization of scrutiny assessment for the A.Y. 2014-15 in the above case. The case record of Shri Ashok Somnath Sonawane for the A.Y. 2013-14 in one volume and Smita Ashok Sonowane for the A. Y. 2014-15 in one volume are being submitted with this letter for your kind perusal and necessary direction. The scrutiny assessment in the case of Smita Ashok Sonavane far the AY 2014-15 Is getting time barred on 31.12.2016.' 02. On receipt of the reference from the ITO Wd 2(1), Nashik as mentioned in para 01 above, the assessee was called upon to attend personally or through her Authorized Representative on 17/11/2016. Explanation was sought on the issues raised by the ITO Wd 2(1), Nashik in the pending assessment proceedings for A.Y 2014-15, which has been reproduced in para 01 above. 03. On the said date, Shri Suhas A. Vadulekar, CA from M/s. Anand Bang & Associates, CAs duly authorised attended and the case was heard. Written submissions were filed on the said date and on 23/11/2016 and the issues involved were discussed at length. During the proceedings, the Authorized Representativ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case was also discussed in the context of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, as per which no sale of agricultural land is valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist. 05.1 On the above issues, the Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the facts of the present case are totally different from the facts emerging from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim and Ors. (supra). Further, in respect of the provisions of section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, it is submitted by the Authorized Representative of the assessee that these provisions have no relevance to the issue of taxation on the transfer of land from an agriculturist to a person who is not an agriculturist. Directions: 06. The submissions made during the proceedings were examined in the context of the reference made by the AO and the case records. It is clearly seen that the facts as emerging from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim and Ors. (supra) are not in consonance from the case of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n A.Y. 2013-14 also. 7.2.1 The ld. CIT(A) also held that the land sold was situated in rural area at a distance of more than 8 kms from Municipal Limits, hence as per section 2(14) of the Act, it was not a capital asset and hence, no capital gain on sale of agricultural land. 7.3 In this case, Revenue has not brought on record any new facts. In the case of assessee for A.Y. 2014-15, returned income has been accepted vide order dated 05.12.2016, based on the direction issued by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Nashik for A.Y. 2014-15. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the ld. CIT(A) that Revenue cannot change the stand in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2013- 14 when the issue involved is identical. Therefore, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A). 7.4 Even otherwise, the ld. CIT(A) has given a finding that impugned land is at a distance more than 08 kms from Municipal Limits. We have perused the copy of the registered Agreement for Sale dated 24.10.2012 which is at page no.40 to 51 of the paper book. It is mentioned in the said agreement for sale, that the impugned land is agricultural land and purchaser is an agricu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rahim Vs. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC). The facts pertaining to the assessee are as under : ⮚ In the case of the Assessee the Land was an agricultural Land as per Revenue Record. ⮚ The land is agricultural land even on 12.07.2016 i.e. much after the sale as per the certificate issued by Tahsildar in which Tahsildar has categorically stated that till today land is used for the purpose of agriculture. ⮚ The Land has not been converted into Non-Agricultural Land even after the Sale. ⮚ The Land is situated beyond 8 kms from the Municipal Limits. ⮚ Agricultural operations were continuously performed on the impugned land till date of sale. ⮚ Consideration paid as per rate applicable for Agricultural land in the area. ⮚ No construction carried out on the impugned land even after the sale. ⮚ The only objection of the revenue was that the impugned land has been sold to Prospective Estate and Reality Logical solutions Put Ltd. However, as per the Agreement to Sale the buyer is an Agricultural company. 7.8 When we analyse all these facts of the case, res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....थील फे.कà¥à¤°. १०२६ व १०२९ अनà¥à¤µà¤¯à¥‡ में. पà¥à¤°à¥‰à¤¸à¥à¤ªà¥‡à¤Ÿà¤¿à¤µà¥à¤¹ इसà¥à¤Ÿà¥‡à¤Ÿ अॅनà¥à¤¡ रीअॅलिटी लोजिकल सोलà¥à¤¯à¥à¤¶à¤¨à¥à¤¸ पà¥à¤°à¤¾.लि. तरà¥à¤«à¥‡ डायरेकà¥à¤Ÿà¤° जयदीप के. ठकà¥à¤•à¤° यांचा साठेकराचा बोजा असलà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤šà¥‡ दिसà¥à¤¨ येत आहे. मौजे शिरगांव, ता. शहापà¥à¤°, जि. ठाणे व मौजे लेनाड खà¥à¤°à¥à¤¦., à¤....