TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1763
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g addition of Rs. 1,21,92,898/- on account of alleged disallowing immunity claimed u/s.2(14) of Income-tax Act, 1961 by treating again as business income, which ground has never been conveyed and/or initiated to respond and revealed through Assessment order only. As no opportunity is afforded either through any notice and/or more importantly under show cause notice about the said ground of addition, it amounts to arbitrary decisions to our belief and against spirit of natural justice. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in finalizing the Assessment proceedings as based on imaginary and wrong interpretation of Section 2(14) of Income tax Act, 1961 upon probability on one hand and by dishonoring supporting evidences upon suspicion and misleading Google images on other hand which amounts to illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed as onus is not discharged in its true spirit to deliver justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 2(14)(iii) of the Act of Rs. 1,21,92,898/- was rejected and the same was added as business income to the total income of the assessee. Order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 03.12.2019 determining total income at Rs. 1,48,80,090/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, it was observed by CIT(A) that the AO made addition after considering all the details and after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is further observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee was not actually an agriculturist but a lawyer by profession and a business person. There was no real agricultural activity on the impugned lands sold by the assessee. The said land was also situated in jurisdiction of Amod Municipality, whose population was more than 10,000. Therefore, the land in question did not fulfil the condition as mentioned in clause (a) to section 2(14)(iii) of the Act for being treated as agricultural land and exempted from capital asset. In view of these facts, the CIT(A) held that lands sold by the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Act and accordingly, the addition of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee had sold only 2 plots in the last three years. It is further contended that appellant is lawyer by profession and comes from family of agriculturists. The Ld. AR also submitted that extent of gains earned by the assessee on sale of land should not be the basis for deciding the nature of land. He also contended that AO had wrongly concluded that appellant accepted advance for land. Those schedule represents "receivables" and therefore, depicted on 'asset' side. The same did not pertain to part of liability side as claimed by the AO and the assessee did not accept any advances for sale of land. 5.2 The Ld. AR also submitted that it is improper to state that the artificial high price was given to the appellant since the same value was also paid against the sales proceeds of nearby land belonging to other persons during the same period. As regards the contention of transaction carried with the related party, it is submitted that appellant had purchased impugned land during FY 2014-15, while she became director of related party during F.Y. 2015-16. Regarding the nature of land and agriculture activity on it, he submitted that the assessee has duly earned agriculture income in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... land in question is an agricultural land situated in a rural area. The said land is not a capital asset as per Section 2(14) of the Act as it satisfies all the criteria of being agricultural land, therefore, the sale of the said agricultural land does not attract any capital gains. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by both the sides. It is seen that the impugned land was recorded as agricultural land in revenue records and has not been converted to non-agricultural land by the appellant prior to sale. Certificates from the Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate affirm both the agricultural nature and location of the land. Besides, the population of the village Sudi, where land is situated, is less than 10,000 and it is more than 15 km from Amod, thereby satisfying the requirements u/s 2(14)(iii)(a)/(b) of the Act . Besides, agricultural income has been shown consistently in ITRs for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 and has not been disputed by revenue. Also, the land was not subjected to plotting, construction, or development. Though the AO has relied on satellite images and proximity to indu....