DCIT, CHENNAI V. Shri Sayarchand Nahar, CHENNAI

ITA 2140/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57955 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIRUDH RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEK
• Keywords: Capital asset; Competent authority; Onus to prove
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2140/MDS/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(1), CHENNAI - 600 034 . (APPELLANT) V. SHRI SAYARCHAND NAHAR, 6/1, NAHAR DRIVE, MAHARANI CHINNAMMA ROAD, ALWARPET, CHENNAI - 600 018. PAN : AAEPN6254B (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIRUDH RAI, CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEK AR, CA DATE OF HEARING : 16.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.02.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, ITS GRIEVANC E IS THAT CIT(APPEALS) DELETED AN ADDITION OF ` 1,11,41,597/- MADE BY THE A.O. UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. AS PER T HE REVENUE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULT URAL IN NATURE, NOR HAD HE CARRIED OUT ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS DURI NG THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. FURTHER, AS PER THE REVENUE, LAND I N QUESTION WAS I.T.A. NO. 2140/MDS/10 2 SUBJECT TO URBAN LAND TAX AND LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGH T NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE LETTER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (UR BAN LAND TAX) FOR HOLDING THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. 2. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN FINANCE BUSINESS, HAD FILED RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSM ENT YEAR DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 3,76,047/-. THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE ON 26.10.2005 AND BASED ON THE MATERIAL FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH INFORMATION REGARDING VARIOUS ISSUES. ASSESSING OF FICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PROPERTY IN THE RELEVANT PREVIO US YEAR FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 1,16,57,500/-. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS LOCATED AT KANATHUR, VILLAGE REDDYKUPPAM. SUBMISSION OF THE A SSESSEE WAS THAT IT WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE, GAINS OF ` 1,14,78,958/- ARISING ON SALE WAS EXEMPT. HOWEVER, AS PER THE A .O., ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATION S DONE BY WAY OF EVIDENCE FOR PURCHASE OF SEEDS, FERTILIZERS, INSECT ICIDES, ETC. NOR COULD IT PRODUCE RECORDS FOR ANY SALE PROCEEDS AND YIELD. AGAIN, AS PER THE A.O., NATURE OF CROPS CULTIVATED, NATURE OF IRRIGAT ION FACILITIES AND DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX PAID WERE ALSO N OT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAD I.T.A. NO. 2140/MDS/10 3 NOT PUT THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL USE AND THEREFORE , THE GAINS ARISING FROM SALE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EXEMPT. HE W ORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER AS ` 1,11,41,597/- AND MADE ADDITION OF THAT AMOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT. 3. IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE LAND WAS NOT SITUATED WITHIN THE JURIS DICTION OF ANY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN COMMITTEE OR A CANTONMENT BOAR D OR ANY AREA WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAD NOTIFIED IN OFFIC IAL GAZETTE WITH REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF URBANIZATION OF THAT AREA. AGAIN AS PER THE ASSESSEE, FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NO T LOGICAL ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING REASONS :- (I) THERE WAS A CLEAR FINDING OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF URBAN LAND TAX THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT AND SUCH AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE OF CASUARINA. (II) AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE SAID LAND WAS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THESE WERE ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. (III) LAND REVENUE RECORDS CLEARLY DISCLOSED THAT THE LAN D WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. (IV) ADANGAL OF VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ALSO ESTA BLISHED THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. (V) POPULATION OF KANNATHUR VILLAGE WAS LESS THAN 10,00 0 AS PER THE RECORD OF VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. I.T.A. NO. 2140/MDS/10 4 (VI) THE WEALTH-TAX RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REFLEC TED THEREIN THE SUBJECT AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THIS WAS ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEARS. (VII) ABSENCE OF RECORDS IN THE NATURE OF SEEDS PURCHASE, INSECTICIDES USED AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES USED DI D NOT CHANGE CHARACTER OF THE LAND. LD. CIT(APPEALS) FORWARDED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A SSESSEE TO THE A.O. WHO, IN HIS REMAND REPORT, STATED THAT THE QUE STION WHETHER A LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT IS ESSENTIALLY A QUESTION OF FACT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE LAND WAS NOT ORDINARILY USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THERE W ERE NO RECORDS FOR PURCHASE OF SAPLINGS OR OTHER INPUTS FOR AGRICU LTURAL ACTIVITIES. ASSESSEE, AS PER THE A.O., HAD NOT PAID ANY AGRICUL TURAL INCOME-TAX. AS PER THE A.O., A WIDE DEFINITION COULD NOT BE GIV EN TO THE TERM AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAJA BENOY KUMAR SAHAS ROY (32 ITR 4 66). AGAIN AS PER THE A.O., THE SALE OF THE LAND WAS ON SQUARE FE ET BASIS AND HAD THE LAND BEEN AGRICULTURAL, SUCH A TYPE OF MEASUREM ENT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED. THE PRICE AT WHICH ASSESSEE SOL D THE LAND WAS ALSO A CLEAR POINTER THAT THE LAND WAS NOT AGRICULT URAL IN NATURE. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE A.O., ASSESSEE COULD NOT DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTING ON IT FOR SHOWING THAT THE LAND WAS A GRICULTURAL. I.T.A. NO. 2140/MDS/10 5 4. REPORT OF THE A.O. WAS PUT TO THE ASSESSE. REPL Y OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT TEHSILDARS REPORT SENT TO THE A. O. ON 7.6.2010 CLEARLY STATED THAT ASSESSEE WAS DOING CASUARINA CU LTIVATION DURING THE PERIOD FROM 2001 TO 2004 AND 1999 TO 2000. AGA IN AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME REPORT ALSO CLEARLY MENTIONED TH AT GROUND WATER WAS USED FOR IRRIGATING THE LAND. ASSESSEE ALSO SU BMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) A LETTER DATED 9.9.2010 OF REFERENCE N O.DIS.5818/2010 AI FROM TEHSILDAR AS PER WHICH, THE LAND WAS SITUAT ED WITHIN THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT LIMIT. BASED ON THE ABOVE SUBMIS SIONS, LD. CIT(APPEALS) CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS EN OUGH EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NAT URE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WAS NO RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE CHARACTER OF LAND HAD UNDERGONE ANY CHANGE TILL THE DATE OF ITS TRANSFER. LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO NOTED THAT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT V. K.E. SUNDARA MUDILIAR & OTHERS (18 ITR 259) HAD HEL D THAT INCOME DERIVED FROM CASUARINA PLANTATIONS WERE AGRICULTURA L IN NATURE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE TESTS THAT WERE TO BE APPLIED FOR DETERMINING THE NATURE OF LAND, WHEN APPLIED, CLEARLY SHOWED THAT T HE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. HE CAME TO A CONCLUSION TH AT THE SAID LAND DID NOT FALL UNDER DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET GIVEN IN SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, BY VIRTUE OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE I.T.A. NO. 2140/MDS/10 6 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. P.J . THOMAS (211 ITR 897), SURPLUS RECEIVED ON SALE OF SUCH LAND COULD N OT BE ASSESSED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 5. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED D.R., STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT BRI NG ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ANY CULTIVATION EVER DONE IN THE SAID LAND. ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT SHOW PROOF FOR PURCHASE OF ANY SAPLI NGS NOR FOR PURCHASE OF INSECTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS. THERE WA S NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAD DONE ANY AGRICULTURAL OPE RATIONS. ACCORDING TO HIM, UNLESS ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT S OME AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, HE COULD NOT CLAIM THAT THAT THE LAND W AS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. LEARNED D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LA ND WAS SOLD AT ` 1,16,57,500/- AND THIS BY ITSELF SHOWED THAT THE LA ND WAS NOT MEANT FOR ANY AGRICULTURAL USE. THE LAND SOLD WAS COMMER CIAL AREA SO CONSIDERED BOTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE PURCHASER. EVEN IF THE VILLAGE AUTHORITIES FOUND SOME CASUARINA PLANTS THE RE, THESE WERE ONLY WILD GROWTH AND THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE RAISED CASUARINA FROM ANY SAPLINGS. ACCOR DING TO HIM, THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RELIED ON BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS DISTINGUISHABLE SINCE IN THAT CASE, ASSESSEE HAD CA RRIED OUT I.T.A. NO. 2140/MDS/10 7 AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. HERE, ON THE OTHER HAND, AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE NEVER CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. PER CONTRA, LEARNED A.R. IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT WEALTH TAX RETURN OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 PLACED AT PAPER-BOOK PAGE 1 2 AND STATEMENT OF NET WEALTH FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 PLACED AT PAPER-BOOK PAGE 14 CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE AGRICULT URAL LAND AT KANNATHUR WAS SHOWN AS EXEMPT AND SUCH RETURNS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDING TO HIM, AGRICULTURAL INC OME WAS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 005-06 (PAPER- BOOK PAGE 15), FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 (PAPER-B OOK PAGE 19) AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 (PAPER-BOOK PAGE 24 ) AND SUCH RETURNS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SOFAR AS NOTICE FOR URBAN LAND TAX PLACED AT PAPER-BOOK PAGE 32 WAS CON CERNED, LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE PROCEEDING IN THIS REGARD WAS DROPPED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY. RELYING ON A LETTE R OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (URBAN LAND CEILING), ALANDUR, CHENNAI , DATED 3.4.1997 PLACED AT PAPER-BOOK PAGES 35 AND 36, HE S UBMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS FOUND BY THE SAID AUTHORITY TO BE AGRI CULTURAL IN NATURE. ACCORDING TO HIM, JUST BECAUSE ASSESSEE COULD NOT P RODUCE PROOF FOR I.T.A. NO. 2140/MDS/10 8 CASUARINA PLANTATIONS ON THE LAND, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE LAND WAS NON-AGRICULTURAL, ESPECIALLY WHEN VARIOUS AUTHO RITIES HAD CERTIFIED THE PRESENCE OF CASUARINA PLANTATIONS IN THE CONCER NED LAND AND ALSO ITS AGRICULTURAL NATURE. ACCORDING TO HIM, LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAD PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE AND CONCLUDED THA T THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE LAND CONCERNED WAS NOT SITUATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL CORPO RATION, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN COMMITTEE OR A CANTONMENT BOARD WHICH HAD A POPULATION NOT LESS THAN 10,000 A CCORDING TO LAST PRECEDING CENSUS. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT IT WAS MORE THAN 8 KILOMETERS OFF FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIP ALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD NOTIFIED BY THE AUTHORITIES MENTIONED ABOVE. THE ONLY QUESTION REMAINING IS WHETHER THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN N ATURE. IF THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE, SURPLUS ARISING OUT OF THE SALE CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITA L GAINS. SINCE THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET UNDER SECTION 2(1 4) OF THE ACT EXCLUDED AGRICULTURAL LAND THEREFROM. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY RECORDS REGARDIN G PURCHASE OF I.T.A. NO. 2140/MDS/10 9 SEEDS AND OTHER INPUTS OR FERTILIZERS OR INSECTICID ES FOR THE CASUARINA PLANTS STATED TO HAVE BEEN GROWN IN THE SAID LAND. HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION, THIS BY ITSELF WOULD NOT CONVERT AGRICULTU RAL LAND IN WHICH FACTUALLY THERE WERE CULTIVATED CASUARINA PLANTS A NON-AGRICULTURAL ONE. FOR DECIDING WHETHER ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATI ONS WAS DONE IN THE SAID LAND, THE PROCEEDINGS CULMINATING IN AN OR DER DATED 3.4.1997 OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (URBAN LAND CEILING), ALA NDUR, CHENNAI- 88 PLACED AT PAPER-BOOK PAGES 35 AND 36, WHICH IS R EPRODUCED HEREUNDER, WILL BE VERY RELEVANT. A LAND SITUATE AT S.NO. 98/16 ADMEASURING TO 0.26.5 HECTARE IS OWNED BY MR. H. CHAYAR CHAND NAHAR, A RE SIDENT OF NO. 17, GENERAL MUTHAIAH STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI -600 079. A NOTICE U/S 7(2) WHICH WAS ORDERED ON 02.02.1996, HAS BEEN SERVED ON 27.12.1996 TO THE SAID LAND OWNER ASKING TO SUBMIT RETURN IN RESPECT OF THE SAID LAND, IN COMPLIANCE W ITH PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7(1) OF TAMIL NADU URBAN LAND CEILING ACT, 1978. FURTHER, THE SAID LANDOWNER FILED HIS OBJECTIONS IN THIS OFFICE ON 31.12.1996. 2. DEPUTY TEHSILDAR OF THIS OFFICE MADE ENQUIRY IN DETAIL AND SUBMITTED HIS ELABORATE REPORT TO THIS O FFICE. IN HIS REPORT, IT IS STATED THAT THE SAID LAND COMPRISED I N S.NO. 98/16 OF KANATHUR REDDYKUPPAM VILLAGE, ADMEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 0.26.5 HA, WAS PURCHASED BY THE PRESENT LANDOWNER N AMELY MR. CHAYARCHAND NAHAR VIDE A SALE DEED BEARING DOCUMENT NO. 1586/89 DATED 23.06.89 AND THAT MUTATION IN HIS NAM E FOR THE SAID LAND IS COMPLETE AS EVIDENT FROM PATTA NO.446. ALSO, PERUSAL OF ADANGAL COPIES FOR THE FASLI YEARS 1392, 1393, 1 395, 1397 & 1400, 1404, 1405 & 1406 REVEALED THE ENTRIES OF CUL TIVATION OF CASUARINAS IN THIS PARTICULAR LAND. THE SAID DEPUT Y TEHSILDAR I.T.A. NO. 2140/MDS/10 10 RECOMMENDED THAT SINCE THIS LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS COULD BE DROPPED. 3. ON 31.1.1997, THE UNDERSIGNED INSPECTED THE SUBJ ECT LAND AND FOUND THAT THE SAME IS ENCOMPASSED BY COMP OUND WALLS ON NORTHERN, SOUTHERN AND WESTERN SIDES. ALSO, SAP LINGS OF CASUARINAS AGED ABOUT 01 YEAR ARE SEEN GROWING THER E. THERE IS NO BUILDING AND WELL ON THIS LAND. 4. THE PROVISIONS OF TAMILNADU URBAN LAND CEILING A CT, 1978 IS EXTENDED TO KANATHUR REDDY KUPPAN VILLAGE W ITH EFFECT FROM 09.08.1995. AS PER THE COPIES OF ADANGAL, OTH ER RECORDS AND SITE INSPECTION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SUBJECT L ANDS CATEGORY IS NOT CHANGED BY REMAINING AS AGRICULTURAL LAND CONTI NUOUSLY. PAGE NO.2 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF URBAN LAND TAX ACT, 1966, SUBJECT LAND HAS BEEN LEVIED WITH URBAN LAND TAX FO R THE FASLI YEAR 1396 VIDE TAXATION NO. 6/1396 DATED 26.12.1994 AND FOR THE FASLI YEAR 1401 VIDE TAXATION NO. 101/1401 DATE D 26.12.1994. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THESE TAXATIONS, THE PROCEEDIN GS TAKEN UNDER TAMIL NADU URBAN LAND CEILING ACT, 1978 IS BEING DROPPED U/S 7(2) OF THE ACT HENCEFORTH. THE ABOVE LETTER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LAND HAD CU LTIVATION OF CASUARINA PLANTS THEREIN AND AS PER THE TEHSILDAR, THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (UR BAN LAND CEILING) HAD DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR LEVY OF URBAN LAND TAX. IN HIS ORDER, IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE STATUS OF THE LAND RE MAINS AGRICULTURAL AND IT CONTINUOUSLY REMAINED TO BE AGRICULTURAL. T HIS IS A FACTUAL CERTIFICATE, AND JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T PRODUCE I.T.A. NO. 2140/MDS/10 11 EVIDENCE REGARDING PLANTS OR SAPLINGS OR FOR PURCHA SE OF INSECTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS, SUCH A FACTUAL REPORT OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOW N AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN ITS INCOME-TAX RETURNS AND ALSO SHOWN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN ITS WEALTH-TAX RETURNS FOR EARLIER YEARS THOUGH CLAIMING IT AS EXEMPT. TEHSILDAR, CHENGALPATTU, HAD ALSO CERTIFIED IN HIS LETTER DATED 7.6.2010 THAT IRRIGATION WAS DONE THROUGH GROUND WATER FACIL ITIES. ADANGAL RECORD ALSO SHOWED THAT LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL. ASS ESSEE MIGHT NOT HAVE PAID AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX BUT AGAIN THIS WI LL NOT CONVERT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO A NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND. AS SESSEE WAS, IN ANY CASE, PAYING LAND REVENUE AND VILLAGE RECORDS CLEAR LY SHOWED THE LAND TO BE AGRICULTURAL. THERE IS NO CASE FOR THE REVENUE THAT AT THE TIME OF SALE, THE LAND HAD BEEN DIVIDED INTO PLOTS. THE ONLY INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES IS THA T THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. INSOFAR AS ARGUMENT OF LEA RNED D.R. THAT CASUARINA PLANTATIONS WERE ONLY SPONTANEOUS GROWTH AND THERE WAS NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT DEPUTY TEHSILDAR, AFTER PERUSING OF ADANGAL COPIES, HAD CERTIFIED THAT THERE WAS A CULTIVATION OF CASUARINA PLANTATIONS. CASUARINA PLANTS CULTIVATED IN A LAND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS GROWIN G SPONTANEOUSLY THEREIN. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT LD . CIT(APPEALS) WAS I.T.A. NO. 2140/MDS/10 12 JUSTIFIED IN TAKING A VIEW THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICU LTURAL IN NATURE AND GAINS ARISING ON SALE WAS NOT EXIGIBLE TO CAPITAL G AINS TAX. NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-II, CHENNAI-34 (4) CIT, CENTRAL-III, CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE