TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 2093
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the additions of Rs. 1046354/- on account of capital gain on sale of agricultural land. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdrawn any ground of appeal before final hearing. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that, Shri Brij Lal Singla, an individual, was assessed for income tax for the year 2011-12 after a search was conducted on the Chinar Group on 08/09/2011 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. His case was handled by the DCIT, Central Circle-I, Chandigarh. A notice was sent to him on 10/01/2013, asking him to file his tax return. He filed it on 31/07/2013, showing an income of Rs. 4,46,680 from salary and other sources. During the assessment, two main issues came up for hearing firstly, deduction of Rs. 63,778 under Chapter VI-A, and secondly the sale of land worth Rs. 20,12,000, which he said was agricultural land and not taxable. 4.1 The AO asked for documents to prove these claims. Although his representative took part in the process, no proof was given for the deduction. For the land sale, he said the land was bought in 2006-07 for Rs. 6,75,000 and was agricultural, so it should ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has filed a written submission which is as under: Briefly the facts of the case are that a search u/s 132(1) of income tax was conducted on 08-09-2011 on Chinar Group of cases and assessee was one of the person covered u/s 132. The assessee has filed return on 31-07-2011 before the date of search & no notice U/s 143(2) was received up to 30-09-2012. Notice U/s 153A was issued on 10-01-2013. During the course of search no incriminating document relating to assessment year 2011-12 was found and assessment has not been abated for relevant assessment year 201112. The Id assessing officer has made addition on the basis of return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of Income Tax Act. The Assessing officer has made the addition simply on the basis of information filed in response to notice u/s 142(1) of Income Tax Act That the assessment has been made u/s 153A(1)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. &therefore addition can be made on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search & in this case no incriminating material relating to sale of agricultural land has been found . The AO has asked various questions dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessment has been made u/s 153A(1)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of search and seizure take place at business and residential premises of assessee and his family members . That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in making the additions of Rs. 9,05,446/- on account of sale of agricultural land at Village Bitna in para 5 of the assessment order without appreciating the facts that no incriminating material has been found during the course of search. That the assessment has been made u/s 153A(1)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. &therefore addition can be made on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search & in this case no incriminating material relating to sale of agricultural land has been found . The AO has asked various questions during asseement proceedings & then he came to know that the assessee has sold agricultural land . . The reliance is placed on Supreme Court decision in case of PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC)/[2023] 293 Taxman 141 (SC).. In respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments no addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with assessee was Rs 30,00,000+1295815+1027000/ =5322815 as against cash found of Rs 41.15 lakhs. The question of undisclosed asset in form of cash does not arise. 8. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the finding of the AO as well as of the Ld. CIT(A). 10. During the appellate proceedings, regarding the issue of various additions made in the assessment under Section 153A read with Section 143(3), the Learned CIT(A) has provided clear and wellreasoned findings, as detailed below: " It has been stated by the appellant that no incriminating documents relating to the year under consideration were found during the course of search and therefore no addition can be made in view of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla ITA 707/2014. The search u/s 132(1) of the Act in this case was conducted on 08.09.2011 and appellant was one of the persons covered u/s 132. The appellant filed return u/s 139 of the Act for the year under consideration on 31.07.2011, before the date of search. Thereafter, notice u/s 153A was issued on 10.01.2013. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d sold by the appellant was gair mumkin pahar. The learned Assessing Officer without making any enquiry for revenue authority wrongly inferred that the land sold by assessee is not cultivable. In this regard, we submit that gair mumkin pahar is type of agricultural land mentioned in revenue record but the land sold by appellant is fit for agricultural purposes and agricultural land and therefore, the assessee should be allowed benefit of section 2(14) of Income Tax Act". The contention of the appellant canot be accepted as the onus lies on the appellant to prove that the land sold is agricultural land and therefore cannot be treated as Capital Asset. The appellant failed to file any documentary evidence to prove that the land sold was agricultural land during the assessment and appellate proceedings. In view of the above discussion it is held that the AO has correctly made addition of Rs. 10,46,354/- on sale of land under the head Capital Gain' as per provisions of law and hence this addition made is confirmed. 13. After considering the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A), we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome : Rs. 9,05,446/- During the appellate proceedings, the appellant filed papers supporting the fact that it was agricultural land. It was further contended that the said agricultural land was not capital asset on 30.10.2011 as the same was not situated within the municipal limits of Pinjore. In this regard, additional evidence in support of this contention was filed in form of search report of Shri Bhupinder Gautam, Advocate dated 10.02.2016 wherein it has been stated that the said land was situated out of limit of municipal limit of Pinjore at the time of execution of the above said sale deed, without referring to the fact that it was situated in municipal limits of Panchkula. The contentions of the appellant that the land sold is not a capital asset cannot be accepted on following grounds:- (a) No certificate from any Revenue official was filed in to rebut the contention of the AO that the land falls in municipal limit of Panchkula. (b) Perusal of Registration deed of the aforesaid land dated 31.10.2011 shows that it has been stated on page 1 that the said land is outside the limits of municipal Committee Pinjore but within the limits of Municipal c....