C.Lingesan, CHENNAI V. ITO, Tambaram

CO 2/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8671 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G MOORTHI
• Assessee Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR.O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2 09 7 /MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 & C.O. NO. 02MDS/2013 [IN I.T.A. NO.2097/MDS/2012] THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(2), TAMBARAM. VS. SHRI C. LINGESAN, NO.1/279, OLD MAHABALIPURAM ROAD, CHENNAI 600 119. [PAN: ABPPL8184N] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/ CROSS OBJECTOR) A PPELLANT BY : SHRI N. MADHAVAN, J CIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.MOORTHI, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 22.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.06.2013 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION AT T HE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE, EMANATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IX, CHENNAI DATED 29.08.2012 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ` .1,38,547/-. THIS INCLUDES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, INCOME FROM PROFESSION (ADVOCATE) AND INC OME FROM OTHER I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.2 22 209 0909 097 77 7/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 02 0202 02/MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 2 SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ADMITTED AGRICULTURA L INCOME OF ` .50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAINS OF ` .2,70,32,415/- RECEIVED OUT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 143(3) BY DENYING THE CLAIM OF CAPITAL GAINS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED INCOME OF ` .2,47,16,636/- AND ALSO ASSESSED AGRICULTURAL INCOM E OF ` .50,000/- AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CLAIMING CAPITAL GAINS TH AT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED HIS SHARE OF ` .2,00,00,007/- TOWARDS SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH HAS BEEN I NHERITED FROM HIS ANCESTORS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PROP ERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY HIS GRANDFATHER IN 1950 AND ARE USED FOR AGRICULTURAL P URPOSE TILL THE DATE OF TRANSFER. A COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLA GE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SEMMENCHERY IN SUPPORT THE ABOVE WAS FILED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CONTENTS OF THE CERTIFICATE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL (PUNJA) LAND AND MANGO CULTIVATION WAS CARRIED OUT IN THAT LAND. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, THE VILLAGE ANNUAL ADANGAL ACCOUNT FROM THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SEMMANCHERY SHOWING THE EXT ENT AND CULTIVATION OF MANGO IN THAT LAND WAS ALSO FILED. THE LAND IS SITU ATED IN SEMMACHERY VILLAGE, WHICH IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF VILLAGE PANCHAYAT AND NOT SITUATED I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.2 22 209 0909 097 77 7/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 02 0202 02/MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 3 IN ANY AREA WHICH COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY. THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD IS TAMBARA M MUNICIPALITY, WHICH IS 10 KM FROM ASSESSEES AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ALSO THE VILLAGE SEMMANCHERY DOES NOT HAVE A POPULATION OF 10000 OR MORE ACCORDING TO THE LAST PRECEDING CENSUS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, A FTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS OBSERVED THAT SEMM ANCHERY IS SITUATED AT RAJIV GANDHI SALAI. ON BOTH THE SIDES OF THE ROAD, NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS HAS BEEN RAISED. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU HAS NOTIFIED THE AREA IN RAJIV GANDHI SALAI AS IT PARK. A SIPCOT HAS ALSO BEEN ESTABLISHED AT SIRUSERI NEAR SEMMANCHERY. THIS AREA IS COVERED UNDER THE CORPORATION LIMIT OF CHENNAI CORPORATION UNDER ZONE XV AND THE ZONAL OFFICE IS SITUATED AT SHOLINGANALLUR, ADJACENT TO SEMMANCHERY. THEREFO RE, AS PER RECORDS, THE ASSET IN QUESTION IS SITUATED WITHIN THE AREA COVER ED UNDER CHENNAI CORPORATION. EVEN THOUGH THE COPIES OF CERTIFICATE OF THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, PRACTICALLY, AT PRESENT, THERE ARE NO AGR ICULTURAL ACTIVITIES EXCEPT FEW MANGO TREES. THE ASSESSEES LAND IS SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL AREAS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DENIED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND TREATED IT AS NON-AGRICULTURA L ASSET AND RAISED CAPITAL GAINS TAX BY FOLLOWING SOME OF THE DECISIONS TO THE EXTENT OF ` .2,45,78,089/-. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.2 22 209 0909 097 77 7/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 02 0202 02/MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 4 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), AFTER CONS IDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'THE APPELLANT BELONGS TO THE FAMILY OF FARMERS, TH E ANCESTORS OF THE APPELLANT OWNED MORE THAN 50 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE APPELLANT AND HIS ANCESTORS WERE AGRICULTURISTS BY PROFESSION AND THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS CULTIVATED BY THEM FOR MORE THAN 5DECA DES AND THE FAMILY HAD NO OTHER INCOME EXCEPT THE INCOME FROM AGRICULT TURE. THE QUESTIONED LAND OF 79 CENTS IN S.NO.139/4, OF 6 3, SEMMENCHERI VILLAGE, IN TAMBARAM TALUK, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT, WAS PURCHASED BY THE GRANDFATHER OF THE APPELLANT ON 1L.06.1957. WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS 9-YEARS OLD AND AFTER THE DE ATH OF HIS FATHER DURING 1974, THE FAMILY ENTERED A PARTITION, VIDE R EGISTERED PARTITION DEED DT.23.02.1974. UNDER THE SAID PARTITION DEED, THE ABOVE SAID LAND ALONG WITH OTHER LAND'S APPROXIMATELY ABOUT 10 ACRES SITUATED IN THE SAID SEMMENCHERI VILLAGE WAS ALLOTTED TO THE SH ARE OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS MOTHER. AFTER THE PARTITION, THE WIDOW MOTHER OF THE APPELL ANT CONTINUED THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS IN THEIR PARTITIONED LAND. THEN THE FAMILY HAD NO OTHER INCOME EXCEPT THE INCOME FROM THIS AGRICUL TURAL LAND SINCE THE APPELLANT BECAME A FIRST GENERATION GRADUATE FROM T HE FARMERS FAMILY. DURING THE YEAR 2006 THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU U NDER THE HIGHWAYS ACT, SUBDIVIDED THE 79 CENTS OF LAND IN S. NO.139/4 AS 139/4A (66.2 CENTS) AND 139/4B (12.8 CENTS) AND ACQUIRED T HE ENTIRE EXTENT OF LAND COMPRISED IN S.NO.139/4B (12.8 CENTS) UNDER TH E SAID ACT FOR WIDENING THE ROAD. THE GOVT. IN ITS ACQUISITION ORD ER CLEARLY SPECIFIED AND CONFIRMED THE LAND IS PUNJA LAND. ON THE REMAINING 66.2 CENTS IN S.NO.139/4A, THEAPPE .LLANT JOINTLY WITH HIS MOTHER SOLD 50.1 CENTS TO BROTHERS AND THEIR FR IEND. THE BUYERS, FOR THEIR CONVENIENCE THEY MADE 3 DOCUMENTS AND DIVIDE THE LAND WITHOUT SUBDIVIDING THE S.NO.139/4A. UP TO THE DATE OF SALE THE LAND WAS USED FOR CULTIV ATION, THE REMAINING LAND REMAINED AND CONTINUED TO BE AGRICULTURAL LAND ; THE APPELLANT I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.2 22 209 0909 097 77 7/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 02 0202 02/MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 5 CONTINUED MANGO CULTIVATION IN A BIG LEVEL AND THE INCOME ON THIS IS ADMITTED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THE LAND REVENUE RECORDS, VILLAGE ANNUAL ADANGAL AC COUNT COPY, AND A CERTIFICATE FROM VAO EVIDENCING THE LAND USED FOR C ULTIVATION AND CLEARLY CONFIRMS THE LAND AS AGRICULTURE LAND. THE SEMMANCHERY VILLAGE WHERE THE LAND IS SITUATED IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF VILLAGE PANCHAYAT WITH A POPULATION OF LESS THAN SEVEN THOUSAND (AS PER 2001 CENSUS THE POPULATION IS 3744 ONLY). THIS IS UNDER KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT. AND NOT SITUATED IN AN Y AREA WHICH COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY . THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD IS TAMBARAM MUNICI PALITY WHICH IS 10 KM AWAY FROM THIS LAND. 6. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS PER SALE DEED DATED 11.09.2008, THE LAND SOLD IS SITUATED AT SURVEY NO. 139/4 OF NO. 63, SEMMENCHERI VILLAGE, PREVIOUSLY SAIDAPET TALUK, CHE NGALPET DISTRICT AND PRESENTLY TAMBARAM TALUK, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT. IN THE SALE DEED, THE LAND SOLD IS DESCRIBED AS UNDER: ALL THAT PIECE AND PARCEL OF PUNJA LAND SITUATED I N NO. 63, SEMMENCHERY VILLAGE, TAMBARAM TALUK, KANCHEEPURAM D ISTRICT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBSERVATION THAT T HE SEMMANCHERY VILLAGE IS SITUATED WITHIN THE AREA COVERED UNDER CHENNAI C ORPORATION IS NOT CORRECT AS THE NOTIFICATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU FOR EXTENSION/MERGER OF CHENNAI CORPORATION LIMITS WAS RELEASED IN 2009, WH EREAS THE LAND WAS SOLD IN SEPTEMBER, 2008 ITSELF. THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED B Y THE VAO, SEMMENCHERY CONFIRMS THAT SEMMENCHERY VILLAGE IS COMING UNDER T HE LIMITS OF CORPORATION OF CHENNAI FROM THE YEAR 2011 AND SECONDLY, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT THE LAND SOLD IS SHOWN AS AGR ICULTURAL LAND IN THE LAND I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.2 22 209 0909 097 77 7/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 02 0202 02/MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 6 REVENUE RECORDS. BUT, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSME NT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE LAND SOLD IS NOT AN AGRI CULTURAL LAND AS THERE IS NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS CONDUCTED ON THE SAID LAN D EXCEPT FEW MANGO TREES. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) G AVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND SOLD WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND A S DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD DEMONS TRATED BY THE CHITTA, PATTA AND ADANGAL THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL ON WHICH MANGO TREES ARE GROWN. MOREOVER, IN VIEW OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE VAO, THE DISTANCE OF SEMMENCHERY VILLAGE FROM THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY, TAMBARAM IS MORE THAN 10 KM AND SINCE THE ASSET IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET IN VIEW OF THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN SECTION 2(14(III) OF THE ACT, SUBJECTIN G THE PROFIT TO CAPITAL GAINS IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` .2,45,78,089/-. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND UNDER DI SPUTE IS NOT A AGRICULTURAL LAND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY CAPITAL GAINS TAX. HE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. SHRI SUBRAMANIAM VADIVEL IN I.T.A. NO. 2118/MDS/2012 DEC IDED ON 20.02.2013. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BELONGING TO THE FAMILY OF FAR MER, THE ANCESTORS OF THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.2 22 209 0909 097 77 7/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 02 0202 02/MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 7 ASSESSEE OWNED MORE THAN 50 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL L AND. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THIS PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 1974 THROUGH A P ARTITION DEED DATED 23.02.1974 AND FROM THE BEGINNING, AGRICULTURAL OPE RATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN THAT LAND AND THEREFORE, THE LAND IS AGRICULTURA L LAND. HE, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ACQUIRED THE LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER COMPULSORY ACQUISITION AND THE ACQUI SITION ORDER IS ALSO CLEARLY SPECIFIES THAT THE LAND IS PUNJA LAND. THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS A PIECE OF LAND LEFT OVER BY THE LAND ACQUISITION A UTHORITIES AND THEREFORE, HE SOLD THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH HIS MOTHER. HE, FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT SEMMANCHERY VILLAGE IS SITUATED IN TAMBARAM TALUK, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT, WHICH DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE CHENNAI CORPORATION. HE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. C IT(APPEALS). 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY DISPUTE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER, THE ASSET IN SUR VEY NO. 139/4 TO THE EXTENT OF 79 CENTS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS MOT HER IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT. THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO THE FAMILY OF FARME RS AND INHERITED THE SAID PROPERTY FROM HIS ANCESTORS. THE SMALL EXTENT OF AS SET WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH PARTITION DEED DATED 23.02.1974 AF TER THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER, WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED. THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE IS THAT THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT SINCE SO MANY I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.2 22 209 0909 097 77 7/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 02 0202 02/MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 8 YEARS. A PART OF ASSESSEES LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY TH E GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPANDING OLD MAHABALIPURAM ROAD AND A SMALL PORTION WAS LEFT OVER. THE SAME HAS BEEN SOLD TO TH REE DIFFERENT PARTIES IN SUPPORTED SALE DEED DATED 11.09.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT BOTH SIDES OF THE ASSET ARE SURROUNDED BY ROADS AND NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL BUILDI NGS HAS BEEN RAISED. THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FOUND INCORRECT BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THE GROUND THAT THE VAO AND THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE CERTIFIED THAT THE ASSET IS A AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ASSET IS SURROUNDED BY SOME BUILDING CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LAND IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY IN AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS FOR MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS. WHEN THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU HAS ACQUIRED SOME PART OF ASSESSEES LAND FOR EXPANSION OF THE H IGHWAY, SUBSEQUENTLY SOME COMMERCIAL BUILDING MIGHT HAVE COME UP. SIMPLY BECAUSE SOME COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED, THE AGR ICULTURAL LAND CANNOT BE CONVERTIBLY A DIFFERENT ASSET. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO SEE TH E NATURE OF THE ASSET BASED ON THE REVENUE RECORDS AND NOT BASED ON THE S URROUNDINGS. THE OBJECTION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ASSET IS SITUATED IN CHENNAI CORPORATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE, THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU IN ITS ACQUISITION ORDER CLEARLY SPECIFIED AND CONFIRMED T HAT THE LAND IS PUNJA LAND. MOREOVER, THE NOTIFICATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF TAM IL NADU FOR I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.2 22 209 0909 097 77 7/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 02 0202 02/MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 9 EXTENSION/MERGER OF CHENNAI CORPORATION LIMITS WAS RELEASED IN 2009, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE ASSET THROUGH SALE DE ED DATED 11.09.2008 WHEREIN, THE ASSET WAS SITUATED AT SURVEY NO. 139/4 OF NO. 63, SEMMENCHERY VILLAGE, PREVIOUSLY SAIDAPET TALUK, CHE NGALPET DISTRICT, PRESENTLY TAMBARAM TALUK, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT AND THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VAO, SEMMANCHERY CONFIRMS THAT SEMMENCHERY V ILLAGE IS COMING UNDER THE LIMITS OF CHENNAI CORPORATION ONLY FROM T HE YEAR 2011. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GAVE CATEGORICAL FIND THAT THE ASSET IS LOCATED IN TAMBA RAM TALUK, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT. THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS DETERMIN ED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) BASED ON THE REVENUE RECORDS AND ALSO SALE DEED. 11. ANOTHER REASON FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS ASSIGNED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE PIECE OF LAND IS SITUATED NEARBY COMMERCIAL BUILDING. THE ABOVE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO OUR MIND BECAUSE, THE ENTIRE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. AFTER ACQUISIT ION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, THE LEFTOVER PIECE OF LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE REVENUE RECORDS ALSO SHOW TH AT IT IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THEREFORE, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE STA TUS OF THE PIECE OF LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT TAKEN PLACE NEAR THE PIECE OF LAND CANNOT CHANGE THE STATUS OF THE LAND IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.2 22 209 0909 097 77 7/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 02 0202 02/MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 10 THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. 12. SO FAR AS CASE LAW RELIED BY THE LD. DR IS CON CERN, WHETHER THE ASSET IS A CAPITAL ASSET OR AN AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS TO B E DECIDED BASED ON THE FACTS AND MATERIAL EVIDENCES OF EACH CASE. IN THAT CASE, THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AT PADUR MADE IT CLEAR THAT NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SO MANY YEARS IN THE PAST. WHEREAS, IN THE PRESENT, THE VAO HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN HIS CERTIFICA TE THAT THE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL (PUNJA) LAND AND MANGO CULTIVATION HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THAT LAND. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE AND HIS ANCESTORS WERE AGRICULTURISTS BY PROFESSION AND THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS CULTIVATED BY THEM FOR MORE THAN FIVE DECADES AND THE FAMILY HAD NO OTHER INCOME EXCEPT T HE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE. FURTHER, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME. THEREFORE, THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR IS ON DIFFERENT FOOTING S. 13. COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES ONLY PLEA IS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS R IGHTLY HELD THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE G AINS FROM THE SALE OF THE LAND ARE NOT TAXABLE. ONCE WE HAVE UPHELD THE FINDI NGS UNDER CHALLENGE IN REVENUES APPEAL, THE CROSS OBJECTION CARRY ACADEMI C SIGNIFICANCE ONLY. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.2 22 209 0909 097 77 7/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 02 0202 02/MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 11 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH REVENUES APPEAL AND ASSES SEES CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 10 TH OF JUNE, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 10.06.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.