ACIT, CHENNAI V. Western Agencies (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1509/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3962 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S NATARAJA
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Section: 115JB

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1509/MDS/2016 & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S WESTERN AGENCIES (MADRAS) PVT. LTD., NO.109/7, UTILITY COMPLEX, ANGAPPA NAICKEN STREET, PARRYS, CHENNAI - 600 001. PAN : AAACW 1558 Q ()*/ APPELLANT) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT) )* - . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. NATARAJA, JCIT +,)* - . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE / - 0' / DATE OF HEARING : 06.07.2017 12' - 0' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.07.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 11, CHEN NAI, DATED 12.02.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. SHRI S. NATARAJA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF GA IN ON THE SALE 2 I.T.A. NO.1509/MDS/16 OF LAND. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND, THER EFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION. THE LD. D.R. FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PART OF REVATHIP URAM LAYOUT AND IT WAS SOLD AS HOUSING PLOT. IN OTHER WORDS, A CCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE LAND AS HOUSING PL OT AND SOLD THE SAME AS HOUSING PLOT, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE THAT THE LAND IS SUBJECTED TO CULTIVATION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI G. BASKAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT A PART OF THE LAND PURCHAS ED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PLOTTED AS HOUSING CITES. THE MAJOR P ORTION OF LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AGR ICULTURAL LAND, HENCE, ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION AS AGRICULTURAL INCOM E. REFERRING TO THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'), THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOK PROFIT COMPUTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPA NIES ACT CANNOT BE LINKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE 3 I.T.A. NO.1509/MDS/16 CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE REGISTERED SALE DEED BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND AND ALSO THE COPY O F REGISTERED SALE DEED WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND. IN T HE SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENT IT WAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE LAND PURCHA SED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A PART OF REVATHIPURAM LAYOUT. IT WAS ALSO SOLD AS REVATHIPURAM LAYOUT HOUSING PLOT. THE ASSESSEE NOW CLAIMS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING THE SAME AS AGRICULTUR AL LAND. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMS THAT A MAJOR PORTION OF LAND W AS PURCHASED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ONLY A PART OF IT WAS PURCHAS ED AS HOUSING PLOT. THE SUBSTANTIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPOR TED BY THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE MATTE R NEEDS TO BE RE- EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS R EMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SHALL EXAMINE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE LAND AS AGRICULT URAL LAND AT THE INITIAL STAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALSO BR ING ON RECORD WHETHER THE ASSESSEE USED THE LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HOW IT WAS SOLD. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL D ECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4 I.T.A. NO.1509/MDS/16 5. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF T HE ACT. 6. SINCE THE MAIN ISSUE OF ASSESSMENT OF GAIN ON SA LE OF LAND IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF T HE ACT ALSO NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE A ND THE ENTIRE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH JULY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 27 TH JULY, 2017. KRI. 5 I.T.A. NO.1509/MDS/16 - +056 76'0 /COPY TO: 1. )* /APPELLANT 2. +,)* /RESPONDENT 3. / 80 () /CIT(A)-11, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT- 3, CHENNAI 5. 69 +0 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.