TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1962
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the land at the time of Memorandum of Understanding dated 15/06/2012 was agriculture land, therefore order passed is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC failed to consider that land were duly shown as agriculture land in sale deed as well as Memorandum of Understanding dated 15/06/2012, therefore the order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Center [CIT(A) NFAC] confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,11,50,582/- made by assessing officer is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in not considering that the land sold by the assessee is agriculture land and situated beyond 8 Kms from Municipal limit of Nagpur and is exempt from tax, therefore addition made is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in not considering that the land sold by the assessee is agriculture land as shown in extract of 7/12 and also as per Mem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 133(6) was called for from Revenue Department, Talathi Karyalaya, Tahsil Nagpur (Rural) on 04.11.2019 regarding the 7/12 extract of the land. The Assessing Officer, on a perusal of the 7/12 extract, noticed that no crop had been grown during the assessment year 2013-14 i.e., in the previous year of the transfer of land. Further, as stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had failed to submit any documentary evidences regarding the agricultural activities, carried out in the land, viz. sale/ purchase, bills of the seeds of the crop, fertilizers, agricultural produce, payment made to the labour, name, address of the purchaser of the agricultural produce etc., and the assessee had also not offered any agricultural income or loss in the return of income filed for the preceding assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14. The Ward Inspector was deputed by the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiries of the site. She has reported that the construction work was undergoing for last 4-5 years. Thus, for the Assessing Officer, it was clear that the land was purchased/sold for non- agricultural purpose. Therefore, the Assessing Officer held the characteriza- tion of the land being capital as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee, we find that the land was agriculture land as per revenue records and located beyond the municipal limits, qualifying the exemption under section 2(14) of the Act. The agricultural income had been consistently reported in previous years, demonstrating the said land as agricultural in nature. We further find that the enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer is after six years of sale of the said immovable property and as such the same is futile due to passage of time. While going through the material on record, we further find that the sale was for agricultural purposes and the non-agricultural conversion was initiated by the purchaser and not by the assessee. Page-56 and 57 of the Paper Book is relevant in this regard. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on various case laws in support of his contentions. We particularly consider it relevant to reproduce from the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in Shri Pandit Vettrivel v/s ACIT, ITA no.146/Chny./2020, A.Y. 2007-08, vide order dated 22/09/2023, wherein the Hon'ble Judicial Member was a party to the Coram, on similar issue, the Bench held as under:- "8. We find that the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as under: - 9. The issue involved in the above Tax Case (Appeals) lies on the narrow compass, viz., whether the lands sold by the assessees are agricultural lands and whether they are entitled to the benefit of exemption from capital gains tax. 10. It is on record that in a report has been submitted by the revenue authorities, it is admitted that the lands are classified as agricultural lands in the revenue records and they are dry lands. The remand report of the Assessing Officer in this regard reads as follows: "During the time of assessment proceedings itself, a confirmation was obtained from the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Thirukazhukundram who has certified in his letter dated 23.12.2010, referred to at 2 above, that in the lands in question casuarinas are grown for the past one and a half year and hence the same are agricultural lands. He has also confirmed in the said letter that the lands are situated at one kilometer distance from the Town Panchayat of Mamallapuram (i.e. within the specified distance from the outer limits of the nearest municipality/town panchayat) and the population of the Mamallapuram Town Panchayat as per 2001 census was 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ultural purposes? (8) Whether the land was situated in a developed area? Whether its physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of the lands in the adjoining area were such as would indicate that the land was agricultural? (9) Whether the land itself was developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities? (10) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for nonagricultural use? (11) Whether permission under s. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of a non agriculturist? If so, whether the sale or intended sale to such nonagriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural user? (12) Whether the land was sold on yardage or on acreage basis? (13) Whether an agriculturist would purchase the land for agricultural purposes at the price at which the land was sold and whether the owner would have ever sold the land valuing it as a property yielding agricultural produce on the basis of its yield? At the risk of repetition, we may mention that not all of these factors would be present or absent in any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any wearing apparel: (b) precious or semi-precious stones, whether or not set in any furniture, utensil or other article or worked or sewn into any wearing apparel; (iii) agricultural land in India, not being land situate (a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population of not less than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous y (b) in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a), as the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanisation of that area and other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette: (iv) 68 per cent. Gold Bonds, 1977, or 7 per cent. Gold Bonds, 1980, or National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980, issued by the Central Government: (v) Special Bearer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the question of law raised, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the exemption. Accordingly, the questions of law are answered in favour of the assessees; (ii) Consequently, the order of the Tribunal dated 11.4.2013 is set aside. In the result, both the above Tax Case (Appeals) are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The above case law clearly supports the case of the assessee. The Hon'ble Court has held that once the factum of agricultural land is evidenced by Adangal and the letter of Tahsildar, the assessee could not be deprived-off its claim. The manner in which the adjacent lands were used would not jeopardize the claim of the assessee. The manner of usage by purchaser would also be not much material. Considering this binding decision, the claim of the assessee was to be allowed. 10. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Borhat Tea Com. Ltd. (138 ITR 783) which, inter-alia, held that for the purpose of land being agricultural land, actual agricultural operations or cultivation or tilling of the land is not necessary. It is to be seen whet....