M. MAHAVIR CHAND TALEDA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2527/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 November 2016AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer needs to re-examine the issue of whether the land is agricultural. This requires verification of cultivation accounts maintained by the State Government, such as the 'adangal' extract.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns whether a property is agricultural land for the assessment year 2009-10. The issue is identical to a previous case involving a co-owner of the same property.

What were the issues?

The primary issue is to determine if the subject land qualifies as agricultural land, which necessitates verification of revenue records regarding cultivation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Hearing: 03.10.2016Pronounced: 23.11.2016

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -13, Chennai, dated 03.08.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

Ms. Sushma Harini, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is whether the property in question is agricultural land or not. According to the Ld. counsel, this Tribunal had an occasion to consider the very same property in the case of co-owner Shri Ashok Jain in I.T.A.

No.896/Mds/2014 and 232/Mds/2016. This Tribunal, after considering material available on record, found that the State Government was maintaining the cultivating account, therefore, the adangal extract needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer before taking decision whether the subject land is agricultural land or not.

Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, this issue may also be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

3.

We have heard Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative, also. It is not in dispute that the subject land in question is the same land as it was considered by this Tribunal in Shri Ashok Jain’s case (supra). The assessee is the co-owner along with Shri Ashok Jain in respect of the very same land.

Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the order of this Tribunal in and 232/Mds/2016 dated 19.05.2016 is squarely applicable. In the case of Shri Ashok Jain, this Tribunal has observed as follows at para 7:-

“7. The assessee claims that the assessee was cultivating the land and there are more than 100 coconut trees, mango trees and cashew nut trees. This fact is not reflected in the CIT’s order as well as the assessment order. The consequential order was passed by the Assessing Officer simply following the direction of the CIT u/s 263 of the Act without making any further investigation. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the assessee claims that the land was subjected to cultivation, it needs to be verified by referring to the revenue records of the State Government. The State Government is maintaining cultivation account. In fact, the Village Administrative Officer of the concerned village takes cultivation account in every six months and records the same in the Village Account No.2 or the adangal. Therefore, the Adangal extract needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer before taking a decision whether the assessee was cultivating the land or not. Since the authorities below have not examined the records maintained by the State Government for cultivation of the said land, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall reexamine the issue afresh after calling for the necessary material from the respective Tahsildar and Village Administrative Officer and thereafter decide the same in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.”

4.

In view of the finding of this Tribunal in the co-owner’s case, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has to re-examine afresh as indicated in the co-owner’s case.

Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the issue of capital gain is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the issue afresh as indicated in the case of Shri Ashok Jain and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 23rd November, 2016 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →