Hemendra Devendra Shah, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 3261/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7422 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M KARUNAKARAN
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , !.. # $%, ' () BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3261/MDS/2016 + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI HEMENDRA DEVENDRA SHAH, NO.14, FIRST AVENUE, HARRINGTON ROAD, CHETPET, CHENNAI - 600 031. PAN : AMZPS 6457 N V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 3(4), CHENNAI - 600 034. (.// APPELLANT) (01.// RESPONDENT) ./ 2 3 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. KARUNAKARAN, ADVOCATE 01./ 2 3 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT # 2 4' / DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2017 56, 2 4' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.03.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 4, CHENN AI, DATED 19.10.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ASSES SMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 2 I.T.A. NO.3261/MDS/16 3. SHRI M. KARUNAKARAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD IMMOVABLE PROP ERTY TO THE EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 23 CENTS COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO.95 /1A8, 95/1A4E, 95/1A7B2 AS PER PATTA SURVEY NO.95/1A3B9 AT NO.36, MUTHUKADU VILLAGE, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT, FOR A SALE CONSIDER ATION OF ` 6,60,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND AS EXEMPTED SINCE THE SAME WAS CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTU RAL LAND IN THE STATE REVENUE RECORDS. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS ` 2,64,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CERTIFICATE FROM VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND ALSO FROM TAHSILDAR TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE POPULATION OF MUTHUKADU VILLAGE WAS ALSO LESS THAN 10,000 AS ON 04.10.2010. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE CUL TIVATED CASUARINA TREES IN THE SUBJECT LAND WHICH IS EVIDENCED BY THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND ALSO THE EXTR ACT OF ADANGAL REGISTER. IN FACT, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, T HE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 1985 AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF LAND WAS NOT CHANGED AT ANY POINT OF TIME. 4. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY P LACING RELIANCE 3 I.T.A. NO.3261/MDS/16 ON THE WEBSITE OF STATE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, FO UND THAT THE SUBJECT LAND WAS CLASSIFIED AS RESIDENTIAL AREA C LASS I. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CLASSIFICATION OF LAND IS D ONE BY THE STATE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND NOT BY REGISTRATION DEPARTME NT, THEREFORE, THE SO CALLED CLASSIFICATION AS FOUND IN THE WEBSITE OF REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE A REASON FOR DISA LLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN ITO V. SMT. G. RAJALAKSHMI IN I.T.A. NO.2807/MDS/2014 D ATED 28.08.2015, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT WHEN THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT MAI NTAIN THE ADANGAL REGISTER IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTY, WH ICH DISCLOSES THAT THE ASSESSEE CULTIVATES CASUARINA, THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SAYING THAT THE LAND WAS CLASSIFIED AS RESIDENTIAL AREA CLASS I. IN VIEW OF THE CLASSIFICATION MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE SUBJ ECT LAND HAS TO BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. 6. REFERRING TO THE PAPER-BOOK, MORE PARTICULARLY P AGES 18 AND 19, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS AN ADANGAL EXTRACT WHICH SHOWS THE CULTIVATION OF CASU ARINA TREES IN THE 4 I.T.A. NO.3261/MDS/16 SUBJECT LAND. MOREOVER, THE LAND IN QUESTION IS SI TUATED BEYOND 8 KMS RADIUS OF THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF SALE DEED, WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPE R-BOOK, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS IN FACT PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ALSO SOLD THE SAME IN THE SAME STATUS AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LD.COUNSEL HAS ALSO PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN MRS. SAKUNTHALA VEDACHALAM V. ACIT IN TAX CASE (APP EAL) NOS.566 AND 567 OF 2013 DATED 06.08.2014, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. SIMILARLY, THE LD.COUNSEL HAS ALSO PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE PRINCIPAL CIT V. M/S MANSI FINANCE CHENNAI LTD. IN T.C.A.NO.483 OF 2016 DATED 01.09.2016, A COPY OF WH ICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 17 OF PAPER-BOOK. THE LD.COUNSEL HAS ALSO PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V. SMT. DEBBIE ALEMAO (331 ITR 590. RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN H ARESH V. MILANI V. JCIT (2008) 114 ITD 428. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS CLASSIFIED 5 I.T.A. NO.3261/MDS/16 AS RESIDENTIAL AREA CLASS I BY THE STATE REGISTRA TION DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME ONLY IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2012-13, THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD. R EFERRING TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE CULTIVATES CASUARINA TREES, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION CA ME INTO POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 29.03.2009 AND OTHER CO-OWNERS WERE IN POSSESSION B Y THE YEAR 1985. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HOLD ING THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AT ALL. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE LAND IN QUE STION IS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR CAPITAL ASSET TAXABLE UNDER TH E INCOME-TAX ACT. IN CASE THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAN D, THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH LAND MAY NOT BE TAXABLE UNDER THE PROVISION S OF INCOME-TAX ACT. 6 I.T.A. NO.3261/MDS/16 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON RECORD. THE ADANGAL EXTRACT, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAI LABLE AT PAGES 18 AND 19 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, SHOWS THAT THE LAND IN QU ESTION IS CLASSIFIED AS DRY LAND AND THE ASSESSEE CULTIVATES CASUARINA TREES. FOR CULTIVATING CASUARINA TREES, THE ASSESSEE HAS T O NECESSARILY UNDERTAKE SOME BASIC AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. IT I S NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ADANGAL EXTRACT, WHICH IS OTHERWISE KNOWN AS VILLAGE ACCOUNT NO.2, IS MAINTAINED BY THE VILLAGE ADMINIST RATIVE OFFICER SUBJECT TO SUPERVISION OF THE TAHSILDAR OF RESPECTI VE TALUK. THEREFORE, THE VILLAGE ADANGAL REGISTER IS AN OFFIC IAL DOCUMENT MAINTAINED BY THE STATE REVENUE DEPARTMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTIMATING FOOD PRODUCTION OF STATE. HENCE, THIS T RIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADANGAL REGISTER CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AS WELL AS THE TAHSILDAR HAVE ALSO CERTIFIED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS C ULTIVATED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, LANDS ARE CLASSIFIE D AS DRY LAND AND WET LAND. WHEREVER THERE IS A DRY LAND, IT CAN ALSO BE CULTIVATED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CASE, THE DRY LAND IS ALS O TO BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN RESPECT OF WET LAND, THERE W ILL BE A SOURCE OF 7 I.T.A. NO.3261/MDS/16 IRRIGATION FROM A TANK OR A NATURAL RIVER. IN SUCH CASE, THE LAND IN QUESTION WOULD FORM PART OF AYAKUT FOR IRRIGATION F ROM THE WATER SOURCE WHICH BELONGS TO GOVERNMENT. IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE LAND IN QUESTION IS CLASSIFIED AS DRY LAND AND THE ASSESSEE IS CULTIVATING CASUARINA TREES WHICH IS EVIDENCED FROM THE ADANGAL EXTRACT. 11. THE CLASSIFICATION OF LAND ADMITTEDLY VESTED WI TH THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF STATE GOVERNMENT. THE STATE REGISTRA TION DEPARTMENT WAS TAKING CARE OF REGISTRATION OF TRANS FER OF LAND AND COLLECTION OF STAMP DUTY THEREON. THE STATE REGIST RATION DEPARTMENT IS EXPECTED TO TAKE THE CLASSIFICATION O F LAND FROM THE CLASSIFICATION MADE BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THI S TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE REGISTRATION DEPART MENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT CANNOT CLASSIFY THE LAND ON ITS OWN. OT HER THAN REGISTRATION OF THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED FOR REGISTR ATION BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND COLLECTION OF STAMP DUTY, TH E STATE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT HAS NO ROLE IN CLASSIFICATI ON OF LANDS. 12. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WH EN THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS CLAS SIFIED THE LAND IN QUESTION AS DRY AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE S TATE REGISTRATION 8 I.T.A. NO.3261/MDS/16 DEPARTMENT HAS CLASSIFIED THE LAND AS RESIDENTIAL A REA CLASS I, WHETHER THE CLASSIFICATION HAS TO BE TAKEN AS AGRIC ULTURAL LAND OR RESIDENTIAL LAND? THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THE CLASSIFICATION MADE BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT WILL PREVAIL OVER THE INFORMATION FOUND IN THE STATE REGISTRATION DEPARTM ENT. THIS IS FOR SIMPLE REASON THAT STATE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT HA S NO JURISDICTION TO CLASSIFY THE LAND. THEREFORE, THE CLASSIFICATIO N MADE BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT SHALL DEFINITELY BIND ON THE STA TE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT. 13. NOW THE DOCUMENT, NAMELY, THE ADANGAL EXTRACT C LEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CULTIVATED CASUA RINA IN THE SUBJECT LAND. THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED I N 1985 AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO DISCLOSES THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS TRANSFERRED AS A GRICULTURAL PUNJAI LAND. THEREFORE, THE SAID LAND HAS TO BE TAKEN AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. 14. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE DECISIO N OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SMT. G. RAJALAKSHMI (SUPRA ). IN FACT, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 6 OF THE SAID ORDER D ATED 28.08.2015 AS FOLLOWS:- 9 I.T.A. NO.3261/MDS/16 6. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE LAND WAS CULTIVATED OR NOT. THE STATE REVENUE DEPARTMENT IS TAKING THE CULTIVATION ACCOUNT IN EVE RY SIX MONTHS. THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER HAS TO TAKE THE CULTIVATION ACCOUNT AND RECORD IN VILLAGE ACCOU NT NO.2. THIS VILLAGE ACCOUNT NO.2 IS OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ADANGAL/CULTIVATION ACCOUNT. SUBSEQUENTLY, A GAZET TE OFFICER FROM THE TALUK OFFICE WILL RE-VERIFY THE AC COUNTS TAKEN BY THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND THI S ACCOUNT WOULD BE USED FOR ESTIMATING THE FOOD PRODU CTION OF THE DISTRICT. THEREFORE, IT OBVIOUS THAT THE CU LTIVATION ACCOUNT (ADANGAL) PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE ADMINISTR ATIVE OFFICER IS THE BASIC DOCUMENT WHICH WAS MAINTAINED BY THE STATE REVENUE DEPARTMENT IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF O FFICIAL FUNCTIONING. IN THIS DOCUMENT, THE SUBJECT LAND WA S SHOWN AS IF IT WAS CULTIVATED WITH PADDY. ONCE THE VILLA GE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, IN EXERCISE OF HIS OFFICIAL FUNCTIONING, FOUND THAT THE LAND WAS SUBJECTED TO CULTIVATION WITH PADDY, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE DOUBTED BY THE INCO ME TAX AUTHORITIES. EVEN DURING EXAMINATION, THE VILLAG E ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CLARIFIED THAT THE SUBJECT L AND WAS UNDER CULTIVATION. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TR IBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IT WAS SUBJECTED TO CULTIVATI ON. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE NOW BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL IS THAT THE ADANGAL REGISTER WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDING TH E ADANGAL REGISTER, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O EXAMINE THE SAME. INSTEAD OF EXAMINING THE ADANGAL REGISTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED AS IF THE LAND WAS CLASSIFIED AS DRY LAND AND THE VILLAGE ADMINIST RATIVE OFFICER ADMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS NOT CULTIVATED A FTER TSUNAMI. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CANNOT GO BEYOND THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT MAINTAINED W HILE PERFORMING THE OFFICIAL DUTY. SINCE THE ADANGAL RE GISTER IS ONE OF THE DOCUMENT MAINTAINED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT SHOWS THAT THE SAID LAND WAS CULTIVATED WITH 10 I.T.A. NO.3261/MDS/16 PADDY, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION T HAT THE SAID LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, THEREFORE, IT CA NNOT BE TREATED AS A CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2(14) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE SUBJECT LAND WAS SITUATED BEYOND 8 KMS RADIUS OF THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT AND THE POPULATION WAS LESS THAN 10,000. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRM ITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). MOREOVER, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED ANY FRESH MATERIAL DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO ACCE PT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- EXAMINATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 15. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PUNE BENCH O F THIS TRIBUNAL IN HARESH V. MILANI (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 23. IT IS FURTHER PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT MERE INCLUSI ON OF LAND IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE WITHOUT ANY INFRASTRUCT URE DEVELOPMENT THEREUPON OR WITHOUT ESTABLISHING AND PROVING THAT THE LAND WAS PUT INTO USE FOR NON-AGRI CULTURAL PURPOSES DOES NOT AND CANNOT CONVERT THE AGRICULTUR AL LAND INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN THE INSTANT CAS E, AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF SALE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION, THE SURROUNDING AREA WAS TOTALLY UNDEVELOPED AND EXCEPT MERE FUTURE POSSIBILITY TO PUT THE LAND INTO USE FO R NON- AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTE R OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WHEN THE LAND WAS SOLD BY TH E ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT APPLIED FOR CONVERSION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND NO SUCH PERMISSIONS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHOR ITY. IN THE REVENUE RECORDS, THE LAND IS CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED FROM 11 I.T.A. NO.3261/MDS/16 AGRICULTURAL LAND TO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AT THE T IME WHEN THE LAND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT I N DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS NO ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESS EE OF DEVELOPING THE LAND BY PLOTTING AND PROVIDING ROADS AND OTHER FACILITIES AND THERE WAS NO INTENTION ALSO ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PUT THE SAME FOR NON-AGRICU LTURAL PURPOSES. NO SUCH FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. NO MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PUT THE LAND IN USE FOR NON- AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. M ERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DIRECT EVIDE NCE OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES, WHICH WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN CONSUMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR OWN PURPOSES, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND WHEN IT IS CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULT URAL LAND IN 7/12 EXTRACTS WHERE THE NATURE OF THE CROP AND THE PERSON WHO CULTIVATED THE LAND ARE DULY MENTIONED A T THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WHEN THE LANDS WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHERE NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE LAND WAS PUT IN USE FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL P URPOSES BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON ''BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOPAL C. S HARMA (SUPRA), IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE PROFIT MOTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IN SELLING THE LAND WITHOUT ANYTHING MORE BY ITSELF CAN NEVER BE DECISIVE TO SAY THAT THE ASSESS EE USED THE LAND FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. WE MAY ALSO REFER TO A DECISION OF THE HON''BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF N. SRINIVASA RAO V. SPECIAL COURT [2006] 4 SCC 214 WHERE IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE FACT THAT AGRICULTUR AL LAND IN QUESTION IS INCLUDED IN URBAN AREA WITHOUT MORE, HELD NOT ENOUGH TO CONCLUDE THAT THE USER OF THE SAME HA D BEEN ALTERED WITH PASSAGE OF TIME. THUS, THE FACT T HAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IN THE INSTANT CASE IS BROUGHT IN INDUSTRIAL ZONE CANNOT BE A DETERMINING FACTOR BY I TSELF TO SAY THAT THE LAND WAS CONVERTED INTO USE FOR NON - AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE T O UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORD ERS OF THE 12 I.T.A. NO.3261/MDS/16 AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD MARCH, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! . . # $% ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 8 /DATED, THE 23 RD MARCH, 2017. KRI. 2 04$9 :9,4 /COPY TO: 1. ./ /APPELLANT 2. 01./ /RESPONDENT 3. # ;4 () /CIT(A)-4, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-5, CHENNAI 5. 9< 04 /DR 6. !+ = /GF.