A.Rajasekaran, Pondicherry V. ITO, Pondicherry

CO 71/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9038 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: N MADHAVAN IRS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENTAND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 425(MDS)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 AND C.O. NO. 71(MDS)/2013 (IN ITA NO.425(MDS)/2013) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(2), D.P. THOTTAM, MUTHIALPET, PUDUCHERRY 605 003. V. SHRI A. RAJASEKARAN, NO.338, M.G. ROAD, MUTHIALPET, PONDICHERRY 605 003. PAN : AAEPR 7577 F (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT & CROSS OBJECTOR) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. MAD HAVAN, IRS. JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. VASUDEV AN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 15 TH OCTOBER, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 ST OCTOBER, 2013 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS- OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEA R IS 2009-10. THE APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJECTION ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XII AT CHENNAI , DATED 2 I.T.A. NO. 425/MDS/13 C.O. NO. 71/MDS/13 8.11.2012. THEY ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLE TED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL READ AS BELOW:- (2) THE LEARNED CIT(A)S CONTENTION IS THAT FOR A LAND TO BE AN AGRICULTURAL LAND THE ONLY REQUIREMEN T IS THAT THE LAND SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS NOT CORRECT. THIS FACTOR ALONG CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVE. THE LAND SHOULD BE USE FOR CULTIVATION OF AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. AS PER THE ADANGAL CERTIFICATES FOR LAND AT R.S. NO.86 /4, 86/2, 86/3, 85/2 IN SIVARANTHAGAM, KIZHUR REVENUE VILLAGE ISSUED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY, NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT SINCE IN HIS POSSESSION. (3) THE ASSESSEE HELD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A PERIOD OF 15 MONTHS (PURCHASED ON 07.07.2007 AND SOLD ON 25.09.2008) ONLY AND DURING THIS PERIOD HE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. HEN CE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TO DERIVE ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME. (4) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT RECOGNISING TH E FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF SELLING THE LAND NO AGRICU LTURAL OPERATION WAS TAKING PLACE. (5) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT RECOGNISING TH E FACT THAT THE GUIDE LINE VALUE IS DETERMINED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY IS NOT AS PER THE AGRICULTURAL LA ND. (6) THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AS THERE IS EVIDENCE FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME. 3 I.T.A. NO. 425/MDS/13 C.O. NO. 71/MDS/13 3. WE HEARD SHRI N. MADHAVAN, LEARNED JOINT COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE AND SHRI T. V ASUDEVAN, COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE DO AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THA T A LAND CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT IT IS CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE REVENUE RECO RDS. THE REVENUE RECORD MAY BE ONE OF THE EVIDENCES THAT THE ASSESSE E COULD RELY ON TO CLAIM THAT THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. BUT THIS BEING BASICALLY A QUESTION OF FACT, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT WHETHER THE LAND WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES IN THE PAST AND WHETHER THE LAND WAS NOT USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSES. IF THE LAND I S BASICALLY AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE, NOT CARRYING ON OF AGRICULT URAL ACTIVITIES INTERMITTENTLY IS ALSO NOT A REASON TO HOLD THAT TH E LAND IS NOT AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. 5. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT HAS TO BE EXPLAINED BY T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE AND IT IS S ITUATED IN A VILLAGE, WHEN THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT TH E LAND WAS USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSES. 6. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO REASON TO SU PPORT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TO HOLD THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE 4 I.T.A. NO. 425/MDS/13 C.O. NO. 71/MDS/13 ASSESSEE IS NOT AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 7. THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPOR TS THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). WHILE THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LIA BLE TO BE DISMISSED, THE CROSS-OBJECTION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE A ND CROSS- OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BOTH ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 21 ST OCTOBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (DR. O .K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED, THE 21 ST OCTOBER, 2013. KRI. COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT, PONDI CHERRY 4. CIT(A)-XII , CHENNAI-34 5. DR 6. GF.