Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
of M/s.Shiridi Estates against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai, in dated 18.11.2016 for the AY 2007-08 & CO No.56/Mds/2017 is a Cross- Objection filed by the assessee in Revenue’s appeal No. ITA No.395/Mds/2017. of Smt.R.Vasanthi Ram Narayan against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai, in ITA No.13/2015-16/CIT(A)-10 dated 18.11.2016 for the AY 2007-08 & CO No.57/Mds/2017 is a Cross-
ITA No.395 of 2017 & CO No.56 of 2017 of 2017 & CO No.57 of 2017 :- 3 -:
Objection filed by the assessee in Revenue’s appeal No. ITA No.397/Mds/2017.
Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mr.K.N.Raghavan, CA represented on behalf of the assessee.
As both the appeals are inter-connected and the issues are identical, the appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
At the time of the hearing, it was submitted by the Ld.DR that the issue in these appeals were against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in holding that the transaction entered into by the assessee in respect of the sale of the land was liable to be assessed as long term capital gains as against business income. It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the Ld.CIT(A) had allowed the assessee’s appeal by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in the case of M/s.Shiridi Estates in & 1803/Mds/2015 dated 18.12.2015 for the AYs 2008-09 & 2009-2010 in the case of Smt.R.Vasanthi Ram Narayan in ITA Nos.1804, 1805 & 1806/Mds/2015 dated 18.12.2015 for the AYs 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12. It was a submission that the order of this Tribunal having not become final and the appeals are pending before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. It was a prayer that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is liable to be reversed.
ITA No.395 of 2017 & CO No.56 of 2017 of 2017 & CO No.57 of 2017 :- 4 -:
In reply, the Ld.AR vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in the case of M/s.Shiridi Estates shows that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in & 1803/Mds/2015 dated 18.12.2015, wherein the Tribunal has held as follows:
“In the case before us, the land was purchased in 1999. The assessee kept the same as investment for almost ten years and thereafter, for realizing better price, divided the land into various plots and sold the same through M/s.Tellus Avenue. Therefore, the judgment of Apex Court in Smt.Indramani Bai (supra) is not identical to the case of the assessee. Moreover, the Apex Court in Smt.Indramani Bai (supra) has not considered the judgment in Raja J Rameshwar Rao (supra) and G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co. (supra). The Madras High Court in identical set of facts, after considering the judgment of Apex Court in Raja J Rameshwar Rao (supra) and G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. (supra) found that the profit on sale of the land is only a realization of capital investment. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly found that the profit on sale of the land has to be treated as long term capital gain. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly, the same is confirmed.”
In the case of Smt.R.Vasanthi Ram Narayan also it is noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in 1805 & 1806/Mds/2015 dated 18.12.2015, wherein it has been held as follows:
“24. The next ground of appeal with regard to addition of Rs.2,75,00,000/- being short term capital gain on sale of land at Nathanallur Village.
ITA No.395 of 2017 & CO No.56 of 2017 of 2017 & CO No.57 of 2017 :- 5 -:
We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee has produced copies of adangal extract and certificate from Village Administrative Officer to establish that the land in question at Nathanallur Village to the extent of 3.63 acres is agricultural land. It is not in dispute that the land in question classified as agricultural land in revenue records. The Village Administrative Officer, who is empowered by the State Government to take the crops account in cultivation. The adangal extract maintained by the Village Administrative Officer under the supervision of Tehsildar, clearly establishes that the land in question is subjected to cultivation. Ignoring the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer and the adangal extract, the Assessing Officer found that the land is not an agricultural land. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the adangal extract and the Village Administrative Officer’s certificate have to be preferred in deciding the characteristics of the land in question. The adangal extract maintained by the Village Administrative Officer under the supervision of senior officers of the Revenue Department is an official document of the State Government. Therefore, it cannot be brushed aside so lightly by the Assessing Officer. When the land in question is subjected to cultivation as established by the certificate of Village Administrative Officer and the adangal extract, this Tribunal has no reason to doubt the claim of the assessee. The Village Administrative Officer has also certified that the land in question is beyond 8 kms radius of any notified municipality. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Mrs.Sakunthala Vedachalam (supra). Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals) and accordingly, the same is confirmed.”
As it is noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the judicial discipline in following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that he did not wish to press the Cross-Objections filed by the assessees. Consequently, the Cross-Objections filed by the assessees are dismissed as withdrawn.
ITA No.395 of 2017 & CO No.56 of 2017 of 2017 & CO No.57 of 2017 :- 6 -: 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos.395 & 397/Mds/2017 stands dismissed and Cross-Objections filed by the assessees in CO Nos.56 & 57/Mds/2017 stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16th August, 2017, at Chennai.