Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9235 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
19-09-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
02-08-2019
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
13-05-2016
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE . , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 ARVIND LAXMAN PATIL PATKAR, PLOT NO.50/4/A, ANANTKRUPA, MAHARANA PRATAP ROAD, PANVEL, RAIGAD 410206. PAN : AAJFP4152H ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. DCIT, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARIKRISHAN REVENUE BY : SHRI N. ASHOK BABU / DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.09.2019 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-2, AURANGABAD DATED 18.02.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. ASSESSEE CLAIMS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME STATUS/DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF GAINS ON SALE OF LAND. PER CONTRA, ASSESSING OFFICER TAXED ENTIRE SUCH GAINS AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS STAND. 2. FACTS: BRIEFLY STATED THE RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING/ACCUMULATION OF LAND AND REPORTED 2 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 HAVING A LAND BANK OR NEARLY 44 PROPERTIES OR SO AS ON 31.03.2009 (FIXED ASSETS SCHEDULE) WORTH COST PRICE OF RS.76,83,988/-. OVER THE YEAR, ASSESSEE INVESTS IS AND DISINVESTS THE LANDS AND, OVER THE YEARS, THE SAID LANDS ARE REFLECTED AS FIXED ASSETS/INVESTMENTS IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE SALE OF SAID LAND, THE RELATED GAINS ARE REFLECTED IN THE RETURN AS THE INCOME FROM THE CAPITAL GAINS. THE COPIES OF THE I.T. RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ONWARDS ARE FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CLAIM. ASSESSMENTS ARE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS U/S 143(3) AND 143(1) OF THE ACT, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE SAID OFFER OF GAINS UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS, STANDS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TILL NOW AND ALSO IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. B. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11,84,296/-. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSEE REPORTED SALE OF VARIOUS LANDS AND CLAIMED THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME OF RS.3,35,33,192/- AS EXEMPT U/S 10 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE REINVESTED THE SAID GAINS AS PER THE LAW AND HENCE, HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT SO INVESTED. REJECTING ALL THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,29,54,915/- (PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). ASSESSEE CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,61,295/- TOO IN THE RETURN AND THE SAME WAS SO REJECTED BY THE 3 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAID PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER :- 6. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE REMARKS, TOTAL INCOME IS COMPUTED AS UNDER : I. INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS DISCLOSED RS. 21,000/ - II. INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION AS DISCLOSED RS. 10,43,514/ - ADD: (I) PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND AS DISCUSSED. RS.3,14,08,693/- (II) AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS DISCUSSED. RS. 3,61,925/- RS.3,17,70,618/ - III INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS DISCUSSED RS. 1,93,636/- GROSS TOTAL INCOME RS.3,30,28,768/ - LESS: DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA RS. 73854/ - TOTAL INCOME RS.3,29 ,54,914/ - ROUNDED OFF RS.3,29,54,915/ - 3. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND TAXED THE ENTIRE GAINS AS THE BUSINESS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT WAS ALSO REJECTED STATING THAT THE LANDS WERE NOT USED FOR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY FOR TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SALE. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A COUPLE OF ADDITIONS I.E. (I) PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND OF RS.3,14,08,693/- AND (II) AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,61,925/-. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON BOTH ACCOUNTS AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. ANALYZING THE GROUNDS, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS NO.1, 2, 4, 6 & 8 (5 GROUNDS) NEED TO BE DISMISSED EITHER AS GENERAL OR AS NON-PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, WE ORDER. 4 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 6. REST OF THE GROUNDS ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER :- 3] THE LEARNED CIT-APPEAL HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE WHILE CONFIRMING TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS INCOME RS.3,17,70,618/- U/S 28(I), BY TREATING AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE R.W.S. 2(13), WITHOUT ANY COGENT EVIDENCE/FINDING AND ALSO NOT PASSING SPEAKING ORDER, AS AGAINST SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS BY ASSESSEE AS PER SECTION 2(14)(III) OF I.T. ACT AND DETAIL SUBMISSION BY ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. 5.1] THE LEARNED CIT-APPEAL ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS & IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE BY DENYING EXEMPTION CLAIM, U/S 54B FOR PURCHASING OF OTHER AGRICULTURE LAND BY INVESTING ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURE LAND WITHIN PERIOD OF 2 YEARS OF SALE AND ALSO IGNORING DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL ITAT PUNE IN THIS RESPECT. 5.2] THE LEARNED CIT-APPEAL ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS & IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE BY NOT ACCEPTING AGRICULTURE INCOME SHOWN/RETURNED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN, BY APPLYING RULE OF CONSISTENCY, AS SAME BEING CONSISTENCY ACCEPTED BY DEPARTMENT FOR ALL THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AND SUBSEQUENT SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT A.Y. 13- 14, EXCEPT A.Y. 12-13 IN APPEAL. 7] THE LEARNED CIT-APPEAL ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS, AS HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AGRICULTURE LAND POSSESSED BY ASSESSEE WAS CAPITAL ASSETS AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 2(14) AND ASSESSEE ALWAYS TREATED LAND AS FIXED ASSETS IN HIS BALANCE SHEET AND NOT AS STOCK IN TRADE; LAND WAS SOLD AS A WHOLE AND NOT INTO PLOT AND NO EXPENSES INCURRED FOR DEVELOPMENT ETC AT ANY TIME AND NO N.A. PERMISSION. 8] THE LEARNED CIT-APPEAL ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY CONFIRMING ORDER OF A.O., THAT ASSESSEE WAS MAINLY ENGAGED IN TRADING IN LAND, WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATING BY ANY COGENT EVIDENCE A.O.S ORDER AND OR FORM/BY THE ASSESSMENT HISTORY OF ASSESSEE; WHEREAS THIS SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND BY A ASSESSEE WAS A ISOLATED/SOLITARY TRANSACTION AND DUE TO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND INFORMATION. 7. FURTHER, REFERRING TO THE GROUNDS ABOVE RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESEE CONCEDES TO THE ORIGINAL CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME STATUS TO THE GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. FURTHER, EXPLAINING THE ABOVE GROUNDS, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED IT LEAVES ONLY A COUPLE OF ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THEY ARE :- 5 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 (I) CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - APPROPRIATE HEAD OF INCOME FOR TAXING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE LAND : RELYING ON THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SAID GAINS CONSTITUTE THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND, ON REINVESTMENT OF THE SAID GAINS IN THE ELIGIBLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS, THE SAID GAINS TO THE EXTENT SO REINVESTED IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIBLE U/S 54B OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE NOW CONCEDES AND OFFERS THE BALANCE OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE FORFEITS THE ORIGINAL CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME U/S 10 OF THE ACT AND CONTENDS THAT THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF LAND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. PER CONTRA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SALE TRANSACTIONS AS TRADING ACTIVITIES I.E. ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND HELD THAT THE INCOME IS TAXABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME I.E. ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. RESULTANTLY, AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE GRANTING OF THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARISE (GROUNDS NO.3, 7 & 8). WHILE DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT, ASSESSING OFFICER REASONED THAT THE SAID LANDS SOLD ARE NOT AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS UNDERTAKEN DURING THE PERIOD OF 2 YEARS PRIOR TO THE SALE (GROUND NOS.5.1 & 5.1). THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,61,925/-. 8. WE SHALL DEAL IN DETAIL WITH EACH OF THE ISSUES IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER. 6 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 ISSUE OF TAXATION OF GAINS APPROPRIATE HEAD OF INCOME 9. BEFORE THE AO: RELEVANT FACTS TO THIS ISSUE INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE TABULATED 13 ITEMS OF PURCHASE AND SALE TRANSACTIONS OF VARIOUS LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF SURVEY NUMBER OF THE LAND ALONG WITH THE DATES, PURCHASE VALUE, SALE VALUE ETC. THE DETAILS ARE GIVEN IN PARA 2.4 AT PAGE 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS PER THE TABLE GIVEN THEREIN, THE CUMULATIVE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF THE SAID LANDS IS RS.3,89,52,000/- AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THESE LANDS IS RS.75,43,307/- [(SIC) RS.76,83,988/-]. THE DIFFERENT OF RS.3,14,08,693/- WAS EVENTUALLY REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CAPITAL GAINS AND RELIED ON THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE BOOKS, THE PROPERTIES WERE SHOWN CONSISTENTLY AS FIXED ASSETS I.E. INVESTMENTS IN LAND FOR CAPITAL GAINS OVER THE YEARS. THESE PROPERTIES ARE FACTUALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE 8 KILOMETRES FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS AND THE HOLDING PERIOD IS LESS THAN 2 YEARS. 10. CONSIDERING THE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS (DISTANCE) LOCATION OF THE ASSETS, HOLDING PERIOD BEFORE SALE OF THE SAME ETC, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOW CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE TO TREAT THE GAINS AS THE PROFIT/BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND DENY THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME STATUS. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 10.02.2015 OPPOSING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS PROPOSAL. THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY RELIED ON THE INVESTMENT-CENTRIC ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT ALSO THE ENTRIES IN THE 7 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 7/12 EXTRACTS IN FAVOUR OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN THE SAID LANDS BUT ALSO THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY WHERE THE SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS ARE ACCEPTED AS CAPITAL GAINS IN THE PAST AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN THIS YEAR TOO. MENTIONING THAT HE MAINTAINED TWO SEPARATE ENTRIES, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE HE OWNS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM MEANT FOR HOLDING THE LANDS AS STOCK-IN-TRADE SEPARATELY ON PART OF THE BUSINESS OF SUCH PURCHASE AND SALES OF LANDS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE NAME OF THE SAID FIRM IS M/S. TRIO ENTERPRISES, WHERE THE ASSESSEE, HIS DAUGHTER AND ARE THE PARTNERS. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LANDS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED/INTENDED AS BUSINESS ASSETS WERE PURCHASED BY THE SAID FIRM ONLY AND THE INVESTMENT ACTIVITY IF ANY IN THE LAND IS TAKEN UP BY THE INDIVIDUAL. ON SALE THE BUSINESS ASSETS, THE PROFITS ARE OFFERED TO TAX AS BUSINESS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED AND REJECTED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE INVESTMENTS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS ACTIVITY I.E. THE ADVENTURES IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. THE CONTENTS OF PARA 3 AND ITS SUB-PARAGRAPHS 3.12 TO 3.13 ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. THE PROFIT MOTIVE OF PURCHASE, SALE OF THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE HOLDING PERIOD OF 2 YEARS, ASSESSEES BACKGROUND AS AN ARCHITECT AND THE KNOWLEDGE ON VALUE OF LAND ETC, ARE THE REASONS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAXED THE ENTIRE PROFITS/GAINS AS THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 12. FURTHER, ON THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE NATURE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD, ANALYZED THE RELEVANT 7/12 EXTRACTS ETC AND HELD THAT THE SAID LANDS ARE NOT ONLY THE NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND BUT ALSO THEY ARE NOT USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BY THE ASSESSEE FOR FULL 2 YEARS PERIOD AS REQUIRED U/S 54B OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 54B OF THE ACT WAS ALSO DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,61,925/- OVER AND ABOVE RS.3,14,08,693/- I.E. ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THIS CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,61,925/- WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE VISIT OF THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX WAS ORDERED. DURING THE VISIT OF ITI, THE LANDS WERE WITH ONLY WILD GRASS AND THERE IS NO ACTIVITY RELATING TO THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE SAID LAND. FURTHER, ON COMMENTING ON THE INVOICES OF PADDY SALES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,18,875/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT TO BE ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO ADD THE SAID SUM OF RS.3,61,925/- TOO AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. BEFORE THE CIT(A): DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE MADE VARIOUS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MENTIONING THAT THE GAINS ON SALE OF LAND IS EXEMPT U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO REITERATED THE CLAIMS ABOUT SANCTITY OF THE 7/12 EXTRACTS AND THE BONAFIDE ON THE CLAIM OF GROWING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE LIKE RICE IN THE SAID LAND. EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR SALE OF THE SAID LANDS IN A BIG WAY DURING THE YEAR WITHOUT 9 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 CONTINUE TO HOLDING THEM FOR LONGER PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE CIDCO WAS ACQUIRING THE LAND IN THAT AREA IN A BIG WAY NEEDED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT IN PANVEL AREA. TO SAVE THE LOS, THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPELLED TO SELL THE LANDS HURRIEDLY. IN THAT PERIOD, THERE IS FEAR ACQUISITION OF THE LANDS BY CIDCO FOR THE SAID AIRPORT CONSTRUCTIONS. THE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA 12 TO 35 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. EVENTUALLY, THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UPHOLDING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS VIEW. HE ALSO DISMISSED THE FACT THAT THE LANDS ARE OF AGRICULTURAL NATURE. ON THE ISSUE OF CLAIM U/S 54B OF THE ACT WITHOUT GIVING MUCH REASONING, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ADJUDICATION OF THIS ISSUE IS AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. IN PARA 36, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THIS ISSUE RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 15. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE ISSUES NARRATED ABOVE. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL PRELIMINARY ISSUE AND ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE 16. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES I.E. COPY OF DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND PROMOTION REGULATIONS RELATING TO NAVI MUMBAI 10 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (NAINA) AND CIDCO, COPIES OF CASE NO.75 OF 2011 REGARDING MUTATION ENTRY NO.1288 RELATING TO GAT NO.87/0, 97/0 AND 99/0, OTHER PAPERS PERTAINING TO GAT NO.16/22A (CASE NO.63 OF 2011) AND GAT NOS.16/22A, 16/4, 16/2(4), 162(2)A ETC. THE ASSESSEE ALSO MADE AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE GIST OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES INCLUDES THE FEAR FACTORS OF LIKELY ACQUISITION OF THE LAND BY THE CIDCO FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SELL THE SAID LAND LOCATED IN AROUND PANVEL FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF NAINA (INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT). ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THESES PAPERS SHALL GO INTO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, IF THE SAID GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TAXED AS CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS PROFITS. 17. CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE SAME, WE FIND APPROPRIATE TO ADMIT THE SAME AND USE IT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE PROPER HEAD OF INCOME FOR TAXING THE GAINS. THE ISSUES FOR ADJUDICATION IN SHORT ARE: A. RELEVANT HEAD OF INCOME FOR TAXING THE PROFITS/GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF LANDS I.E. I. AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS CONCEDED BY THE ASSESSEE. II. CAPITAL GAINS AS BUSINESS INCOME I.E. ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. B. CAPITAL GAINS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT AS CONCEDED PARTLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,84,81,978/- OUT OF RS.3,14,08,693/-. 11 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 18. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THE SAME IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER :- 1. AS PER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ATTACHED WITH RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 31-03-2014 THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD URBAN AGRICULTURE LANDS SITUATED WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF PANVEL TOWN CONSISTING OF 16 SURVEY NOS. BY WAY OF 13 SALE DEEDS AND HAS EARNED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.3,13,44,837/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED A PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID URBAN AGRICULTURE LANDS IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AT ABOUT A DISTANCE OF 18 TO 20 KMS. FROM THE PANVEL TOWN AND IN THE RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 1,57,88,632/- U/S 54B FROM THE CAPITAL GAINS. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE GAINS FROM THE SALE OF THE LANDS IS TO BE TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE LANDS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT ON THESE LANDS. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE PROPOSITIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT: A. THE GAINS OF RS.3,13,44,837/- FROM SALE OF LANDS ARE ASSESSABLE AS CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. LAND HAS BEEN HELD AS FIXED ASSETS IN THE BALANCE-SHEET FILED WITH- THE INCOME TAX DEPT. (PAGE NO. 128, 137,140,154,159 OF THE PAPER BOOK). ASSESSEE HAS USED HIS OWN CAPITAL AND NO BORROWED FUNDS WAS USED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LANDS. . (PAGE NO. 128,137,154 OF PAPER BOOK). (PAGE 13 PARA 3.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). INVESTMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE WITH ANY INTENTION OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS IN LANDS. IF THAT WAS THE INVENTION THE ASSESSEE, HIS DAUGHTER MRS. AARTI DINESH NAIK, AND MR. MOHD IQBAL MOHD AFAQUE KHAN THE OTHER CO-OWNERS OF THE LAND COULD HAVE CARRIES ON THIS ACTIVITY IN THE FIRM M/S RENAISSANCE INFRA PROJECTS, WHICH IS IN THE ACTIVITY OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTIONS, WHERE ALL THE 3 CO-OWNERS ARE PARTNERS. IN-SPITE OF BEING IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AS PARTNER IN THE FIRM M/S RENAISSANCE INFRAPROJECTS, THE 3 CO-OWNERS HAVE DECIDED TO MAKE INVESTMENTS SEPARATELY IN AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THIS CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE INTENTION THAT THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS HAS BEEN MADE AS A SEPARATE INVESTMENT ACTIVITY. THAT THE ASSESSEE ALL ALONG HAD THE INTENTION OF ONLY MAKING INVESTMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND NOT TO INDULGE IN ANY TRADING IN AGRICULTURAL LANDS, IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT AFTER SELLING THE LANDS IN QUESTION THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FURTHER 16 INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE A. Y. 2013-14 AMOUNTING TO RS.2,18,09,447/-. IN THE A. Y. 2014-15 THE 12 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 ASSESSEE HAS MADE FURTHER 6 INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL LANDS AMOUNTING TO RS.48,00,781/-. IN THE A.Y. 2015-16 ASSESSEE HAS MADE FURTHER 6 INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL LANDS AMOUNTING TO RS.16,71,220/- AND IN A. Y. 2016-17 THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE 4 MORE INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL LANDS AMOUNTING TO RS.17,85,000/. AS AGAINST THIS AFTER THE A. Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE DURING THE A.Y. 2013-14 HAS SOLD ONLY 2 LANDS FOR A SMALL AMOUNT OF RS.5,40,000/- AND IN THE A.Y. 2014-15 ANOTHER 2 LANDS FOR RS.16,43,200/-. NO LANDS HAS BEEN SOLD IN A. Y. 2015-16 AND A. Y. 2016-17. (PAPER BOOK PAGE NOS. 88, 89, 93 AND 98). IT CAN BE SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE 32 INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL LANDS DURING 4 YEARS FROM A. Y. 2013-14 TO A. Y. 2016-17. IN THIS PERIOD THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ONLY 4 LANDS FOR A SMALL AMOUNT OF RS. 21,00,000/-. DURING A. YS. 2015-16 AND 2016-17. PRIOR TO THE A. Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO THERE ARE NOT MANY SALES OF LAND. IN A. Y. 2010-11 ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ONLY TWO LANDS. THESE LANDS WERE ACQUIRED BY ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 1996, I.E. ABOUT 24 YEARS BEFORE THE SALE. (PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 93). IN A. Y. 2011-12 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SOLD ANY LAND. (PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 96). FROM THE FREQUENCY OF AND QUANTUM OF INVESTMENTS IN LANDS AND THE SALE OF LANDS, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF ANY BUSINESS OR ANY ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE IN LANDS BUT IT IS THE INVESTMENTS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED THE LANDS WITH THE INTENTION OF MAKING ANY PROFITS BY TRADING IN LANDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY ENCASHED THE GOOD APPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF LAND. BESIDES THERE BEING GOOD APPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF THE LAND TO ENCASH, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO PROMPTED TO SELL THE LANDS IN QUESTION WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND, BY TWO ADVERSE CIRCUMSTANCES. FIRSTLY IN THE F. Y. 2011-12 RELEVANT TO A. Y. 2012-13 UNDER CONSIDERATION THE PRICES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AROUND THE TOWN OF PANVEL HAVE STARTED TO RECORD GOOD APPRECIATION. IN VIEW OF THE SUDDEN INCREASE IN THE PRICES OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS, THE FARMERS / OWNERS (WHO HAVE SOLD THESE LANDS EARLIER), IN ORDER TO EXTRACT SOME EXTRA MONEY STARTED CREATING LEGAL PROBLEMS FOR THE PERSONS WHO HAVE EARLIER PURCHASED THESE LANDS AND STARTED FILING VARIOUS KINDS OF SUITS IN RESPECT OF SUCH LANDS. THE ASSESSEE AND HIS CO-OWNERS ALSO BECOME CIRCUMSPECT THAT THE LANDS PURCHASED BY THEM MAY ALSO GET INVOLVED IN SOME KIND OF LITIGATION. AT THE SAME TIME, THE NEWS ALSO STARTED COMING IN THAT CIDCO MAY ALSO ACQUIRE THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS NEAR THE TOWN OF PANVEL IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED NEW AIRPORT TO BE DEVELOPED NEAR THE TOWN OF PANVEL, WHICH MAY LOCK UP THE INVESTMENTS IN THE LAND FOR A LONG TIME. A NOTIFICATION NO. TPS- 1712/475/CR-98/12/UD-12 DATED 10-01-2013, IN THIS REGARD ACTUALLY CAME TO BE ISSUED LATER. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE DECIDED TO DISPOSE-OFF THE LANDS HELD BY HIM, NEAR THE TOWN OF PANVEL. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE IN ORDER TO ENCASH THE INVESTMENT WELL-IN-TIME DISPOSED-OFF 16 SURVEY NOS. OF LANDS LOCATED IN THE VILLAGES CHIKHLE AND VIHIGHAR. THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM THE 13 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 SALE OF THESE LANDS WAS RE-INVESTED IN AGRICULTURAL LANDS AT SOME DISTANCE FROM THE PANVEL TOWN. THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN RESPECT OF RE-INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LANDS FROM THE CAPITAL GAINS THAT HAVE ARISEN FROM THE SALE OF 16 SURVEY NOS. OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. ALTHOUGH NO LITIGATION ACTUALLY CAME TO BE FILED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID 16 SURVEY NOS. OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER SOME SUITS WERE FILED IN RESPECT OF OTHER LANDS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO IMPLICATED. IN SUPPORT OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES DEVELOPING IN AN AROUND THE TOWN OF PANVEL THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF THE COPIES OF THE SAID LITIGATION SUITS ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. TPS-1712/475/CR-98/12/UD-12 DATED 10- 01-2013, ISSUED BY CIDCO. THE ASSESSEE HAVE ALSO SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FREE TO HAVE TWO PORTFOLIOS I.E. THE ASSESSEE CAN BE IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN LANDS, AND AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE CAN ALSO PURCHASE LANDS FOR INVESTMENTS PURPOSES. - VIKSIT ENGINEERING LTD. 100 TAXMANN.COM 436 (BOMBAY). - SRI HEMANT B. MOTADU ITA NO. 283/PUN/2014 (PAGE 7 PARA 10 AND PAGE 8 PARA 11). AFTER THE A. Y. 2012-13 BECAUSE OF THE RECESSION, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY APPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF THE LANDS, THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SOLD ANY LANDS FOR NEXT 4-5 YEARS. THIS ALSO ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN LANDS. IN THE A. Y. 2010-11 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE GAINS ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AS CAPITAL GAINS. (PAGE 93 OF THE PAPER BOOK) IN THE CASE OF GAUTHAM CONSTUCTION COMPANY (39 TAXMANN.COM 181)(HYDERABAD), ALSO THE LANDS WERE SOLD WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF 16 MONTHS.THE HON'BLE HYDERABAD BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IT WAS NOT ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AS THE LANDS WERE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AS FIXED ASSETS. IT WAS HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE LAND WAS SOLD FOR PROFIT IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT INCOME ARISING FROM SALE OF LAND WAS TAXABLE AS PROFIT FROM ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. IN THE CASE OF HEENABEN BHADRESH MEHTA (96 TAXMANN.COM 164) (GUJRAT), IT WAS HELD THAT JUST BECAUSE THE LAND WAS SOLD AFTER HOLDING IT FOR A PERIOD OF ONLY 15 MONTHS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE HUGE PROFITS AND THE BUYER WAS AN INDUSTRIAL UNIT AND HAD THE POTENTIAL TO USE THE LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES COULD NOT BE A DETERMINATIVE FACTOR TO TREAT THE PROFIT ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS BUSINESS INCOME. (PARA 7 TO PARA 10). IN THE CASE OF SHAILESH GANGARAM RAMANI (89 TAXMANN.COM 76) (RAJKOT), IT WAS HELD THAT, WHERE ASSESSEE PURCHASED LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS BUT ON ACCOUNT OF GETTING GOOD PRICE SAID LAND WAS SOLD AND HIGHER VOLUME 14 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PURCHASED SUBSEQUENTLY AT DIFFERENT PLACES, ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS TRADER OF LAND AND, THUS, PROFIT ARISING ON SALE OF LAND WAS NOT TAXABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME. B. THE LANDS SOLD WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS, EVEN THOUGH THESE WERE LOCATED WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF PANVEL TOWN. - AS PER 7/12 EXTRACTS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FROM PAGE NO. 2 TO 63, CROP OF RICE WAS GROWN AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE AS WELL AS AT THE TIME OF THE SALE OF LANDS. - 7/12 EXTRACT IS THE CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF AGRICULTURAL CROPS GROWN ON THE LAND; - THANMAL GANESHMAL PARMAR, ITA NO. 266/PUN/2013. - MURTUZA SHABBIR JAMNAGARWAL, ITA NO.1144/PUN/2016. - GOVERDHAN S. PAWAR, ITA NO. 1780/PUN/2012. C. DEDUCTION U/S. 54B OF THE ACT IS AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM SALE OF THE LAND THAT WERE HELD FOR EVEN LESS THAN TWO COMPLETE YEARS BUT ON WHICH CROPS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TWO CROPS SEASONS. IN ITS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RAMESH NARHARI JAKHADI [1992] 41 ITD 368 (PUNE), THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 54B WOULD BE SATISFIED IF THE ASSETS HAS BEEN USED FOR WHOLE OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND SOME DAYS OF THE YEAR EARLIER TO THE PRECEDING YEAR, AND NOT NECESSARILY FOR WHOLE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS (PARA 9). THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE PUNE BENCH, OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF, MAJID KHAN NISAR KHAN ITA NO. - 901/PUN/2016. D. FROM THE CAPITAL GAINS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,84,81,978/- THAT HAVE ARISEN FROM THE SALE OF THE LANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN CULTIVATED FOR TWO CROP SEASONS, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54B, IN RESPECT OF REINVESTMENT IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. - DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM SALE OF THE LANDS WHICH WERE CULTIVATED FOR TWO CROP SEASONS. SUCH CAPITAL GAINS WORKS OUT TO RS. 1,84,81,978/- AS PER THE CHART PLACED AT PAGE NO. 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS CONCEDED THAT THE REMAINING CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 1,28,62,859/- (3,13,44,837/- - 1,84,81,978) IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54B OF THE ACT. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT THAT CROPS WERE RAISED FOR TWO SEASONS IN THE LANDS THAT HAVE GIVEN RISE TO CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 1,84,81,978/- MAY EVEN BE REFERRED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. - THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 54B IS AVAILABLE ONLY UPTO THE INVESTMENTS OF RS. 1,68,32,962/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UP TO 30- 15 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 09-2012 I.E. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AS PER SEPARATE TABLE SUBMITTED BY HIM IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENTS. 3. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 3,61,925/- HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS OTHER INCOME, AS AGAINST THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 4,25,781/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 4,25,781/- MAY BE ASSESSED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. SD/- (AR) DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL A. CAPITAL GAINS VS. BUSINESS INCOME 19. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE ASSESSEES DECISION NOT TO PRESS ON THE ORIGINAL CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL NATURE OF THE EARNING ON SALE PROCEEDS OF THE LANDS. THEREFORE, THE SAID ORIGINAL CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . 20. HAVING HELD SO, WE SHOULD NOT PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE IF THE SAID EARNING AS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEARD BUSINESS INCOME AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A) OR TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. 21. IN THIS REGARD, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WITH THE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ENTITIES MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. (A) INDIVIDUAL FOR HOLDING THE LANDS AS INVESTMENTS FIXED ASSETS AND (B) THE FIRM FOR HOLDING THE LANDS AS STOCK-IN-TRADE, THE BOOK ENTRIES BECOME RELEVANT, RELIABLE AND SACROSANCT. FURTHER, WITH RULE OF CONSISTENCY IN FORCE AND APPLICABLE TO THESE FACTS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OVER THE YEAR I.E. AS TAXABLE UNDER CAPITAL GAINS, WHICH IS UNDISTURBED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THESE YEARS, BECOME MANDATORY. DETAILS ARE ELABORATELY 16 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 DISCUSSED ALREADY IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS IN THE NOTE/PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE AR BEFORE US. 22. PER CONTRA , THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING AN ARCHITECT IS IN POSSESSION OF BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE ON THE LAND MATTERS AND, WITH PROFIT MOTIVE, WHEN SOLD THE LANDS FOR PROFITS, THE SAME BECOME TAXABLE PROFITS AS BUSINESS INCOME. REVENUE HOLDS THAT THE HOLDING PERIOD OF THE LAND IS LESS THAN 2 YEARS. THEREFORE, THE TRANSACTION IS IN THE NATURE OF ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN THE SAID LAND TOGETHER WITH THE SUPPORTING REPORTS OF THE ITI CONTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS DECISION TREATING THE SALE TRANSACTIONS AS ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. ON THESE REPORT OF ITI, THE ASSESSEE ARGUES THAT THE SAME DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ASSESSEE RELIES ON THE THALATIS REPORT ON ONE HAND AND THE CONTENTS OF 7/12 EXTRACT OF THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER. THESE 7/12 EXTRACTS SUPPORT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT RICE WAS CULTIVATED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 23. CAPITAL GAINS PROPER HEAD OF INCOME: ON HEARING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE OF PROPER HEAD OF INCOME FOR TAXING THE EARNINGS, WE FIND THAT IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CONSISTENTLY RECORDED THE SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION AS THAT OF THE INVESTMENT ACTIVITY RELATING TO FIXED ASSETS. IT IS ALSO BORN ON RECORDS THAT THE LANDS AS BUSINESS ASSETS (STOCK-IN-TRADE) ARE EARMARKED FOR HIS PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE FIRM HAS SELF, DAUGHTER AND SON AS THE PARTNERS. 17 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 REVENUE DID NOT DISTURB THE SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE CO-PARTNERS OF THE FIRM TOO. OTHER PARTNERS ALSO CLAIMED CAPITAL GAIN IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL RETURNS AND THE SAME WERE UNDISTURBED. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, WE FIND THAT THE SAID RULE HAS APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A) ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISTURBING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE SET PRINCIPLES RELATING TO THE USE OF CONSISTENCY. ACCORDINGLY, RELEVANT GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 24. JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR SALE OF MANY LANDS NAINA PROJECT : FURTHER, REGARDING THE LARGE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS OF SALE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS THE JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR SALE OF LANDS HELD ON INVESTMENT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS THE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CIDCO WENT ON ACQUIRING THE LANDS IN THAT AREA IS A BIG WAY FOR NAINA AND THE SAME IS CAPABLE OF CREATING A DRIVE TO SELL THE LANDS INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR THE CIDICOS DRIVE TO ACQUIRE THE LESSER PRICE. HENCE, IT CAN CONSTITUTE JUSTIFIABLE REASON. IN OUR VIEW, THE MOTIVE OF INCREASING THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH THE BUSINESS LINKED PROFIT MOTIVE. BUSINESS SHOULD NOT ONLY HAVE THE PROFIT MOTIVE BUT ALSO SHOULD HAVE THE STOCK-IN-TRADE. THE BOOK ENTRIES, WHICH HAPPEN AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF ASSET, REFLECTS THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSET IS TO HOLD THE ASSET AS FIXED ASSET/INVESTMENT AND NOT THE ASSET FOR SALE FOR PROFIT. SUCH BUSINESS ASSETS ARE HELD BY THE FIRM WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS THE PARTNER. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS HAVE THE MERITS. 18 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 25. THEREFORE, ASSESSEES CLAIM OF OFFER THE GAINS EARNED ON THE DISINVESTMENT OF THE FIXED ASSETS, UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS LIKE IN EARLIER AND LATER YEARS, IS PROPER AND IS CONFIRMED IN PRINCIPLE; BUT FOR THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE SET PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, RELEVANT GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AS ABOVE. B. DEDUCTION CLAIM U/S 54B OF THE ACT 26. FACTS ARE ALREADY DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS OF THE ORDER. IN BRIEF, ASSESSEE EARNED CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.3,14,08,693/-AND OTHERWISE THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF THE LAND IS RS.3,83,52,000/-. THE GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS HELD AS FIXED ASSETS WERE REINVESTED IN THE ELIGIBLE LANDS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,84,81,978/- ONLY. THE TABLES SHOWING THE ABOVE FIGURES ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER :- TABLE NO.I. SHOWING DETAILS OF LANDS SOLD, PURCHASE/SALE DATES, PURCHASE AND SALVE VALUES SR. NO. DESCRIPTION OF LAND PURCHASE DATE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IN RS. SALE DATE SALE CONSIDERATION IN RS. 1 89/2 VIHIGHAR 21/04/2010 2,91,524 03/12/2011 16,33,500 2 102/2/3 VIHIGHAR 29/04/2010 3,37,428 03/12/2011 18,90,000 3 15/3 & 16/14, VIHIGHAR 01/09/2010 5,43,343 03/12/2011 30,37,500 4 91/1 VIHIGHAR 13/11/2009 2,58,516 03/12/2011 18,09,000 5 91/2 VIHIGHAR 13/11/2009 2,77,776 03/12/2011 19,44,000 6 100/3 VIHIGHAR 11/03/2010 4,53,213 03/12/2011 25,38,000 7 89/6 VIHIGHAR 24/11/2009 2,33,267 03/12/2011 18,63,000 8 15/5 VIHIGHAR 08/06/2010 4,03,997 03/12/2011 22,54,500 9 88/2, 93/3, 100/2, 100/2/4 VIHIGHAR 03/05/2010 27,74,835 29/02/2012 1,56,06,000 10 89/1 VIHIGHAR 30/04/2010 1,72,136 29/02/2012 12,28,500 11 98/2 CHIKLE 25/10/2010 10,34,227 25/10/2011 33,66,000 12 90/2 CHIKLE 03/01/2010 7,63,045 23/02/2012 17,82,000 TOTAL 75,43,307 3,89,52,000 [GAINS - 3,89,52,000 75,43,307 = 3,14,08,693] 19 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 TABLE NO.II. AGRICULTURE LAND PURCHASE & SALE SUMMARY CAPITAL GAINS STATEMENT. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SR. NO. SURVEY NO. DATE OF PURCHASE CROP AS PER 7/12 EXTRACT ON PURCHASE DATE OF SALE CROP AS PER 7/12 EXTRACT ON SALE PERIOD HOLDING CAPITAL GAINS (RS) LANDS WITH RICE HELD FOR 2 CROP SEASONS 1 15/5 08-06-2010 RICE 03-12-2011 RICE 18 MONTHS. 08-06-2010 TO 03-12-2011 18,50,503 2 91/1 13-11-2009 RICE 03-12-2011 RICE 24 MONTHS. 13-11-2009 TO 03-12-2011 15,50,349 3 91/2 13-11-2009 RICE 03-12-2011 RICE 24 MONTHS. 13-11-2009 TO 03-12-2011 16,60,824 4 100/3 11-03-2010 RICE 03-12-2011 RICE 21 MONTHS. 11-03-2010 TO 03-12-2011 20,84,787 SUB TOTAL 71,46,463 5 88/2 03-05-2010 RICE 29.02.2012 RICE 20 MONTHS. 03-05-2010 TO 29-02-2012 1,13,35,515 6 94/3 RICE RICE 7 100/2 RICE RICE 8 102/2/4 RICE RICE SUB TOTAL 1,13,35,515 TOTAL 1,84,81,978 27. THE ABOVE TABLES PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD, CROPS GROWN AS PER 7/12 DOCUMENTS, DETAILS RELATING TO THE CONDITION OF TWO YEARS MENTIONED IN SECTION 54B OF THE ACT AND THE REINVESTMENT OF GAINS IN THE ELIGIBLE ASSETS. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) DISCUSSED THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT IN CRYPTIC MANNER. OF COURSE, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE SPECIFICS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED ALL THE RELATED TRANSACTIONS AS ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE . ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A) DID NOT ALLOT MUCH SPACE FOR DECIDING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT IN THEIR ORDERS IN A PROPER MANNER. 20 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 28. HOWEVER, BEFORE US, LD. REPRESENTATIVES SUBMITTED THE ADDITIONAL INPUTS AND CASE LAWS TO JUSTIFY THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS. THEY ARE ALREADY DISALLOWED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS OF THE ORDER. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES, WE FIND THERE ARE COUPLE OF REASONS FOR THE SAID REJECTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A), NAMELY (I) THE LANDS SOLD WERE NOT AGRICULTURAL LANDS AS ONLY GRASS WAS SEEN GROWING IN THOSE LANDS AT THE TIME OF ITIS VISIT; AND (II) THE USE OF THE LANDS FOR AGRICULTURE FOR 2 YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TO THE DATE OF SALE, AS SPECIFIED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B(1) OF THE ACT. WE SHALL NOW PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE EACH OF THE ISSUE I.E. (I) AGRICULTURAL LANDS OR NOT AND (II) LAND USE FOR AGRICULTURE FOR TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TO DATE OF SALE. 29. A. AGRICULTURAL LANDS OR NOT : IN THIS REGARD, THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT WITH NO DIRECT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF GROWING THE RICE, SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, OTHER RELATED DIRECT EVIDENCES, THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL STATUS CANNOT BE GRANTED TO THE SAID LANDS SOLD THAT GAVE RISE TO CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.3,13,44,837/-. PER CONTRA, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WITH THE DETAILS AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES LIKE 7/12 EXTRACTS AND THE CONTENTS THEREIN, THE TALATI CERTIFICATES AND THE REVENUES DOCUMENTS, THE LANDS IN QUESTION CONSTITUTES AN AGRICULTURAL LANDS AS MENTIONED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO THE REPORT OF THE ITI OF ASSESSING OFFICER, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID REPORT IS RELEVANT TO THE TIME OF HIS VISIT AND CERTAINLY NOT TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE FIXED ASSETS WITH AGRICULTURAL CROPS CONSTITUTES THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND RELEVANT GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LANDS, ARE 21 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. THUS, THE REVENUE FAILED TO GENERATE ANY EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DETAILS GIVEN IN THE 7/12 EXTRACTS ARE INCORRECT AND UNRELIABLE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ALLOWED IN PRINCIPLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ORDER. 30. B. AGRICULTURAL USE OF LAND FOR TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TO THE DATE OF SALE : THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTION SUBJECTED TO FULFILMENT OF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. ONE SUCH CONDITION RELATES TO LAND USE FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES FOR TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TO THE DATE OF SALE OF THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN THIS REGARD, THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT, THE CONDITION RELATING TO 2 YEARS IS NOT FULFILLED. AS PER THE REVENUE, USE OF LAND FOR 2 FULL YEARS IS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT. CONSEQUENTLY, AS PER THE SAID INTERPRETATION OF REVENUE, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. FURTHER, THE REVENUE HELD THAT, RELYING ON THE PRINCIPLES OF LITERAL INTERPRETATION, GROWING OF CROPS IN TWO CROP SEASONS IS NOT ADEQUATE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LAND USE FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES FOR 2 FULL YEARS, IS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT. 31. PER CONTRA, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CONDITION OF TWO YEARS STAND READ DOWN BY THE TRIBUNALS AND THE GROWING OF CROPS IN CROP SEASONS OF TWO SUCCEEDING YEARS MEETS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT. ASSESSEE DOES NOT NEED TO USE THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS FOR TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THEIR SALE WITH AGRICULTURAL USE. 22 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 32. ON HEARING BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE OF MEANING OF TWO YEARS, WE FIND IT RELEVANT TO EXAMINE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B(1) OF THE ACT AND THE RELEVANT DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT SECTION 54B : CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF LAND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CERTAIN CASES. 54B. (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND WHICH, IN THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, WAS BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENT, OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER THAT DATE, PURCHASED ANY OTHER LAND FOR BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THEN, INSTEAD OF THE CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY, . 33. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LAND TRANSFERRED (LANDS SOLD) SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED BY THE ASSESSEE/PARENT/HUF FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE TRANSFER DATE IS SPECIFIED CONDITION IN THE LAW. AS PER THE SAME, TO AVOID PAYING CAPITAL GAINS TAX, THESE PROVISIONS SPECIFY THE CONDITIONS FOR REINVESTMENT OF THE GAINS IN THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS ONLY IN THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD. 34. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE TIME-LINE PROVIDED FOR PURCHASE OF ELIGIBLE LANDS AND THE AGRICULTURAL NATURE OF THE SAME. THE DISPUTE IS ONLY ON THE CONDITION OF 2 YEARS OF LAND USE FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES FOR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TWO YEARS FROM THE 23 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 TRANSFER DATE OF THE LANDS SOLD. THUS, WHILE THE REVENUE IS IN FAVOUR OF THE TWO CALENDAR YEARS, THE ASSESSEE ARGUES THAT THE AGRICULTURAL USE OF LANDS FOR TWO CROP SEASONS IN TWO YEARS FULFILS THE SPECIFIED CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 54B(1) OF THE ACT. 35. IN THIS REGARD, WE PROCEED TO ANALYSE THE DATE AND THE CASE LAW IN THE CASE OF RAMESH NARHARI JAKHADI VS. ITO, 41 ITD 368 (PUNE TRIB.) AND FIND THAT THE TABLE NO.II ABOVE INDICATED THAT THE GROWING OF RICE IN TWO CROP SEASONS I.E. JUNE 2009 TO DECEMBER 2012, IS EVIDENT. 36. FURTHER, WE PROCEED TO EXAMINE THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAMESH NARHARI JAKHADI (SUPRA). FURTHER, WE PROCEED TO EXTRACT THE HELD PORTION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAMESH NARHARI JAKHADI (SUPRA) AND THE SAME ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER :- THE DEFINITION OF SHORT-TERM CAPITAL ASSET REFERS TO CAPITAL ASSETS HELD FOR NOT MORE THAN 36 MONTHS PRECEDING THE DATE OF TRANSFER. THE WORD HELD IS SIGNIFICANT AND COMPREHENSIVE AND COMPRISES PHYSICAL DOMAIN AND CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS OBTAINED BY WAY OF POSSESSION. EVEN SECTION 54B IS CONCERNED WITH TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND WHICH WAS BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES IN THE TWO YEARS PRECEDING THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND, THEREFORE, IT CONTEMPLATES ASSET HELD FOR LESS THAN 36 MONTHS AS WELL AS ASSETS HELD ABOVE 36 MONTHS. THEREFORE, SECTION 54B CONTEMPLATES CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON TRANSFER OF BOTH SHORT-TERM AS WELL AS LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSETS. SECTION 54 CONTEMPLATES USER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND THEREFORE, THE REFERENCE IS TO THE YEARS AND NOT DURING THE WHOLE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AS VIEWED BY THE AUTHORITIES. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE ASSET HAS BEEN USED FOR THE WHOLE OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND SOME DAYS OF THE YEAR EARLIER TO THE PRECEDING YEAR, STILL THE REQUIREMENT OF S. 54B WOULD BE SATISFIED. APPLYING THE DEFINITION OF SHORT-TERM CAPITAL ASSET WITH REFERENCE TO THE WORD 'HELD', IT COULD BE SAID THAT ANY ASSET HELD IN THE TWO YEARS 24 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF TRANSFER WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF UNDER S. 54B ON THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON ITS SALE. SINCE IT IS COMMON PRACTICE TO OBTAIN EARNEST MONEY OR ADVANCE OR INSTALMENTS BEFORE A PROPERTY IS CONVEYED BY REGISTERING SALE DEED, THE INVESTMENT MADE OUT OF SUCH AMOUNT WOULD AMOUNT TO INVESTMENT OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION. CIRCULAR NO. 359, DT. 10 TH MAY, 1983 ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH SECTION 54E WOULD APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE TO RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54B ALSO. APPLYING THE SPIRIT OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE BOARD, IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER WOULD ALSO BE ELIGIBLE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS INVESTMENT MADE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS. THE LIMIT OF TWO YEAR PERIOD AFTER TRANSFER IS AN OUTER LIMIT, WHILE THE INVESTMENTS MADE EARLIER TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER OUT OF THE EARNEST MONEY OR ADVANCES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO FALL WITHIN TWO YEARS TIME-LIMIT PERIOD. THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54B IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNTS INVESTED IN THE NEW AGRICULTURAL LANDS UP TO 16-2-1988. 37. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CONDITION OF TWO YEARS OF AGRICULTURAL USE OF LANDS STANDS MET IF THE SAID LANDS ARE USED FOR AN YEAR PRECEDING TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF LAND AND ALSO SAME DAYS OF THE YEAR PRECEDING TO THE SAID PRECEDING YEAR. IN OTHER WORDS, TWO CROP SEASONS IN THE TWO YEARS PRECEDING TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER, MEETS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF LAW IN SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THIS ASPECT OF THE PROVISIONS WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CROP SEASONS OF RICE, TO APPLY THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAMESH NARHARI JAKHADI (SUPRA), THE EXTENT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF GAINS IN THE ELIGIBLE LANDS ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE, ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCEPT THE CONTENTS OF 7/12 EXTRACT IN ITS ENTIRETY. ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALSO RESTRICT THE DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT TO 25 ITA NO.1008/PUN/2016 THE EXTENT OF REINVESTMENT OF GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF ELIGIBLE LANDS AND IN THE ELIGIBLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS ONLY. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, WE REMAND ALL THE RELATED ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE RELEVANT GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED AS ABOVE. 38. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( /VIKAS AWASTHY) ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019. SUJEET / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)-2, AURANGABAD. 4. THE PR. CIT-2, THANE. 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.
