NAGAPPAN SUGANTHI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE WARD CIRCLE-22, CHENNAI

However, Ld. AR asserted that impugned land as sold by the assessee was agricultural land. In the alternative, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee claimed deduction u/s.54B which has been denied for want of evidences. Drawing our attention to para 5.2(ii) of the impugned order, the Ld.AR submitted that additional evidences filed by the assessee, in this regard, were not admitted by the first appellate Authority. In the said background, Ld. AR submitted that the assessment may be restored back to Ld. AO keeping all the issues open. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, drew attention to the cross-objections and made similar prayer. Considering the same, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 3.1 The assessee being resident individual sold certain agricultural land for Rs.137.60 Lacs. However, in original return of income, no capital gains were shown and accordingly, the case was reopened and notice u/s.148 was issued on 08-11-2017. During the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee sold vacant land admeasuring 86 cents comprised in survey No.249/1 (As per patta bearing No.3148) situated at 153, Perumbakkam Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kanchipuram Dist. for a consideration of Rs.137.60 Lacs. No capital gain was offered on the ground that agricultural operations were carried out on the said land and the land is situated more than 8 kms.

3 away from nearest Tambaram municipality. In other words, the assessee submitted that the said land was agricultural land and it could not be considered as a capital asset. 3.2 However, the Census Officer, vide letter dated 13-11-2018, informed that as per census 2011, population of Tambaram municipality was 1.75 Lacs. As per amendment provisions of Section 2(14) of the Act, the land should be situated beyond 6 kms as measured aerially from nearest municipality. From google map, it was ascertained that land was situated within only 5.1 kms and therefore, Ld. AO held that the land was a capital asset exigible to tax. Accordingly, the Ld.AO computed capital gain of Rs.137.18 Lacs. 3.3 The assessee claimed deduction u/s.54B on the ground that sale consideration to the extent of Rs.38.88 Lacs was invested in agricultural land in the name of her son Shri M. Chittibabu. However, in absence of any documentary evidences and considering the fact that the land was purchased in the name of her son much earlier to the sale of land in question, the said deduction was denied to the assessee. 3.4 During appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished new evidences to support the fact that property was not a capital asset. However, in absence of application for admission of new evidences under Rule 46A, said evidences were not admitted. The Ld. CIT(A) also held that since TDS was deducted on sale consideration u/s.194IA and the assessee claimed credit of TDS, the sale consideration would be taxable in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the action of Ld.AO was upheld. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

The assessee’s appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 23rd August, 2023. (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा ! / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे3ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :23-08-2023 DS आदेश की Aितिलिप अ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. " थ"/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु</CIT 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडA फाईल/GF