Green World Projects Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

CO 200/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2938 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: THARISH V
• Assessee Lawyers: R DURAIPANDIAN
• Keywords: Capital asset

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI , ! ' ! # . $ % &' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.3173/MDS./2016 & C.O. NO.200/MDS./2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 2(2), CHENNAI -34. VS. M/S.GREEN WORLD PROJECTS PVT LTD., 8A, JAWAHAR STREET, THIRUPATHI NAGAR EXTN., KOLATHUR, CHENNAI 600 099. [PAN AACA 4298 F ] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.R.DURAI PANDIAN, JCIT, D.R /RESPONDENT BY : MR.THARISH V., C.A / DATE OF HEARING : 06.03.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03 - 04 - 2017 , / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A )-6, CHENNAI, DATED 21.09.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 -13. ITA NO.3173/16 CO NO.200/16 :- 2 -: 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS FO R OUR CONSIDERATION. 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2.1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLDING THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND IN QUESTION IS A CAP ITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) ON THE GROUND THAT THE LANDS WERE SUBJECTED TO SEASONAL CULTIVATION AND BASED ON THE VAOS CERTIFICATE. 2.2. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE VAO I N HIS CERTIFICATE HAD ONLY STATED THAT FE IMPUGNED LAND WAS SUBJECTED TO SEASONAL CULTIVATION WITHOUT MENTIONING THE CROPS PRODUCED T HEREIN. 2.3. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE CHITTA AND ADANGAL ON THE NATURE OF CROPS/P RODUCE CULTIVATED IN THAT LAND EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS. 2.4. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY BILLS OF VOUCHERS FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF SEEDS, MANURES, PAYMENT MADE TO AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS ETC ., EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. 2.5. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE EARLIER YEARS WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY. 3. IN CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN SUPP ORT OF THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). 4. THE ONLY MAIN ISSUE IN REVENUES APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND HO LDING THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND IN QUESTION IS A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF ITA NO.3173/16 CO NO.200/16 :- 3 -: SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) ON THE GROUND THAT THE LANDS WERE SUBJECTED TO SEASONAL CULTIVATION AND BASED ON THE VAOS CERTIFI CATE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO TREATED THE IMPUGNED LAND IN QUESTION AS CAPITAL ASSET AND MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 1,09,42,510/- UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) TREA TED THE IMPUGNED LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HELD THAT IT IS NOT L IABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS TAX AS THIS IS TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS SH OWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS WELL AS THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE VAO. AGG RIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 5. BEFORE US, LD.D.R MADE A PRIMARY OBJECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE CHITTA AND ADANGAL EXPLAINING THE NATURE OF CROPS/PRODUCE CULTIVATED IN THAT LAND BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BILL/VOUCHERS FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF SEEDS, MANURES, PAYMENT MADE TO AGRICULTURAL LABOUR ERS ETC., BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE L D.CIT(A). THE LD.A.R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.D. R. IN OUR OPINION, THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF TH E INCOME TAX RULES, ITA NO.3173/16 CO NO.200/16 :- 4 -: 1962. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVID ENCES RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES BEFORE THE THE AO, THE LD.C IT(A) WOULD HAVE CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, INSTEAD LD.CI T(A) HAS OPTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION, WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATE. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR F RESH CONSIDERATION AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 03 RD APRIL, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ! ' # . $ %& ' ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ) % / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER () / CHENNAI *+ / DATED: 03 RD APRIL, 2017. K S SUNDARAM +,-- ./-0/ / COPY TO: - 1 . / APPELLANT 3. - 1-!' / CIT(A) 5. /23- 4 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. - 1 / CIT 6. 3&-5 / GF