SUNDARAM SANJAY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

पीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri K.S.Balakrishna,Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri V.M.Mahidar, JCIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2018 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: In this appeal filed by the assessee it is aggrieved that Assessing Officer made addition of ₹1,63,54,432/- under the head long term capital gains rejecting his contention that the land sold was agricultural in nature.

Contention of the Learned AR was that the said sum received by the assessee was not exigible to capital gains since the land sold was agricultural in nature. According to learned AR, land was located far away from any notified towns. However, according to him, Assessing Officer took a view that assessee could not file any evidence for crop cultivation and expenditure incurred in relation to agricultural operation. According to him, Assessing Officer took a view that land sold was not agricultural.

As per Learned AR, addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by learned CIT(A) despite assessee’s contention that land was classified as agricultural in revenue records. Contention of the Learned AR was that purchaser M/s.BGR Boilers Pvt.Ltd., never made any attempt for converting the land and land still remained agricultural.

According to him, land had coconut trees, teakwood trees and mango trees yielding crop. Further, as per Learned AR, land was at Perivelikkadu Village and it was not a corporation or municipality. Thus, as per Learned AR, land did not fall within the definition of capital asset under clause (iii) of section 2(14) of the Act. Learned AR also placed before us a copy of adangal record, which according to him, clearly proved the land sold to be agricultural in nature. To a question from the Bench, Learned AR fairly agreed that assessee was unable to produce copy of adangal record before the lower authorities. However, according to him, adangal record :- 3 -: in the name of purchaser was produced and this also clearly indicated that land sold was punja land with cultivation.

Claim of the assessee is that land was agricultural in nature and did not fall within the definition of capital asset under clause (iii) of section 2(14) of the Act. Assessee claims that adangal record in the name of purchaser was produced before the lower authorities. However, it is an admitted position that adangal record in the name of assessee has been produced for the first time before us. No doubt, this adangal record clearly indicate that there was some cultivation in the land located at survey no.202. However, as mentioned by us, this adangal record was not produced by the assessee before the lower authorities. We also find :- 4 -: that whether the property falls within the limb (a) of clause (iii) to Section 2(14) of the Act has also not been verified by the lower authorities. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that matter requires fresh look by Assessing Officer. We set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit the question regarding the nature of the land sold by the assessee and whether it should be excluded from the definition of capital asset under clause (iii) of section 2(14) of the Act, back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.