M.Chandrasekaran, Nagapattinam V. ITO, Nagapattinam

ITA 1021/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68786 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K SOUNDARARAJAN
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1021/MDS/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) MR. M.CHANDRASEKARAN, PUTHAN SANNATHI THERU, VELLAPALLAM POST VEDARANYAM TK. NAGAPATTINAM DIST. PAN:AAKUPC8953C VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(2), NAGAPATTINAM. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. K.SOUNDARARAJAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : MR. N.MADHAVAN JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 22 ND OCTOBER, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 TH OCTOBER, 2013 O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRICHY DA TED 6.3.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THOUGH TH E ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS T HAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDI NG THAT AGRICULTURAL LANDS AT VELANKANNI ARE LIABLE FOR CAP ITAL GAINS TAX. ITA NO.1021/MDS//2012 2 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSES SMENT COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AT VELANKANNI VILLAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT VELANKANNAI AS SPECIAL PANCHAYAT LIMIT, ITS POPULATION WAS MORE THAN 10, 151 ACCORDING TO 2001 CENSUS, THEREFORE LANDS SITUATED IN VELANKANNI ARE ATTRACTED CAPITAL GAINS. IT WAS THE FURTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THESE LAND S WERE NOT USED FOR AGRICULTURE. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACES A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 36. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITS THAT THE MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT ISSUED A G.O.MS.NO.270 DATED 11.6.2004 A ND BY NOTIFICATION NO.II, THE GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU CAN CELLED THE G.O. OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & WATER SUPPLY DE PARTMENT NO.270 AND WITH EFFECT FROM 14.06.2004 SEVERAL TOWN PANCHAYATS WERE RECONSTITUTED AS VILLAGE PANCHAYAT S UNDER ITA NO.1021/MDS//2012 3 TAMIL NADU PANCHAYATS ACT, 1994. THE COUNSEL SUBMIT S THAT BY VIRTUE OF THIS NOTIFICATION, VELANKANNI IS NOT A TOWN PANCHAYAT BUT A VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, THEREFORE, AGRIC ULTURAL LANDS SITUATED AT VELANKANNI ARE NOT LIABLE FOR CA PITAL GAINS TAX. THE COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ADA NGAL EXTRACT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT PALM TREE AND PADDY WERE CULTIVATED IN THE LAN D SITUATED IN VELANKANNI, THEREFORE, THE LANDS ARE AGRICULTURA L LANDS. THE COUNSEL ALSO REFERS TO ADANGAL EXTRACT DATED 16.11 .2013 AND SUBMITS THAT IN THE SAME LANDS COCONUT AND MANGO TR EES WERE CULTIVATED EVEN AFTER THE SALE EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITS THAT LANDS WERE USED ONLY FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THE COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT CONSID ER THE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.12.2009 ISSUED BY VILLAGE ADMI NISTRATIVE OFFICER, VELANKANNI AND REVENUE INSPECTOR, VELANKAN NI, WHO CERTIFIED THAT THE LANDS IN DISPUTE ARE AGRICULTURA L LANDS AND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT VELANKANNI IS NOT A TOWN PANCHAYAT WITH EFFECT FROM ITA NO.1021/MDS//2012 4 14.6.2004 BUT ONLY A VILLAGE PANCHAYAT. THEREFORE, EXEMPTION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT W OULD APPLY TO THIS CASE. 4. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT TH E NOTIFICATION COPY SUBMITTED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WA S NOT PLACED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT S THAT EXTRACTS OF ADANGAL WERE PLACED BEFORE THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. HAV ING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS AND THE DOCUMENTS, WE FEEL THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH L OOK AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1021/MDS//2012 5 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 25 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 25 TH OCTOBER, 2013. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (4 ) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5 ) D.R. (3) CIT (6 ) G.F.