DCIT, CHENNAI V. Dr.R.Rangarajan, CHENNAI

ITA 410/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96214 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PATHLAVATH PEERYA
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Competent authority; Assessment record; Revised return
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . !' , # $% BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 410 /MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-18, CHENNAI 600 034. (/ APPELLANT) V. DR. R. RANGARAJAN, SHANTHI SUDHA, NEW NO.38, OLD NO.24, ABM AVENUE, RA PURAM, CHENNAI 600028. PAN AADPR7092J (/ RESPONDENT) AND ./ ITA NO. 411/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SMT. SAKUNTHALA RANGARAJA N OF INCOME-TAX, SHANTHI SUDHA, NEW NO.38, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-18, V. OLD NO .24, ABM AVENUE, CHENNAI 600 034. RA PURAM, CHENNAI 600 028. PAN AOUPS3497P ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI PATHLAVATH PEERYA, CIT ASSESSEES BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE 1 2 3 456 / DATE OF HEARING : 19.08.2015 78 3 456 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.10.2015 - - ITA 410 & 411/15 2 & / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE TWO APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME- TAX(APPEALS) DATED 28.11.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009- 10. SINCE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS AR E COMMON, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE COMMON GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES IN TH ESE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: 2.1 . THE C!T(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF THE LAND. 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN, THE LAND SOLD WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF MORE THAN 8 KM FROM THE NEAREST AVADI MUNICIPALITY AND THEREFORE THE PROFIT ON THE SALE OF SUCH LAND I S NOT LIABLE TO TAX . 2 . 3 THE C!T(A) ER R ED IN THE LAND SOLD WAS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF 10KMS FROM THE NEAREST AVADI MUNICIPALITY BASED ON THE VAO'S CERTIFICATE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS. - - ITA 410 & 411/15 3 2 . 4 THE C!T(A) ERRED IN THE LAND SOLD WAS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF 10KMS FROM THE NEA R EST AVADI MUNICIPALITY BASED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CHENNAI) LTD'S LETTER DATED 20.12.2010 WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE BUS ROUTE NO.61B,61K,61D AND 61E PLAYING BETWEEN AVADI AND MORAI VILLAGE IS 10 KMS. FROM THE LETTER ITSELF IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT VARIOUS ROUTE ARE AVAILABLE TO REACH MORAI VILLAGE AND HENCE IT WILL NOT BE TREATE D AS CONCRETE EVIDENCE FOR MEASURING DISTANCE BETWEEN AVADI AND MORAI VILLAGE. 2.5 THE C!T(A) HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD CLEARLY ESTAB L ISHED THAT THE LAND WAS VERY MUCH WITHIN 8 KMS FROM THE AVADI MUNICIPALITY. HE DEPU T ED THREE INCOME-TAX INSPECTOR TO ASCERTAIN ACTUAL DISTANCE AND AS PER THEIR REPORT, THE DISTAN CE BETWEEN AVADI MUNICIPALITY AND MORAI VILLAGE IS 5.5 KMS ONLY. 2.6 THE C!T(A) HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE HON'BLE ! TAT AND BY EXAMINING ALL EVIDENCES PLACED BEFORE THEM AND PASSED THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW. 3. THE FACTS AS NARRATED IN THE CASE OF DR. R. RANG ARAJAN ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FOUNDER-CHAIRMAN OF VELTECH GROUP OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, AVADI. THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTI ONS RUN BY THE TRUSTS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF T HE TRUSTEES. THE ASSESSEE'S PREMISES WERE ALSO SEARCHE D U/S.132 OF THE ACT ON 27.08.2008. FOR THE AY 2009-1 0, - - ITA 410 & 411/15 4 THE ASSESSEE FILED A E-RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.07.20 09 DISCLOSING A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 3,50,07,409/-. HE FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2009 DISCLOSING A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 4,38,44,341/-. SUBSEQUENTLY A REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ON 22.12.2010 DECLARING A TOTAL IN COME OF ` 1,29,32,780/-. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE INCOME ORIGINALLY RETURNED AND REVISED REPRESENT CAPITAL G AINS OF ` 3,09,11,561/- ON THE SALE OF LAND AT MORAI VILLAGE , AMBATTUR TALUK ORIGINALLY OFFERED BUT WITHDRAWN IN THE REVISED RETURN. DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE LAND SOLD BY HIM AT MORAI VILLAGE WAS AGRICULTU RAL LAND AND THEREFORE THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH AGRIC ULTURAL LAND IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSE E, THE LAND SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF MORE THAN 8 KM FROM THE NEAREST AVADI MUNICIPALITY AND THE LAND BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH LAND I S NOT LIABLE TO TAX. ON VERIFICATION IT WAS FOUND THAT TH E LAND WAS NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IT WAS SOLD TO A TRUS T AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY BRINGING THE ENTIRE - - ITA 410 & 411/15 5 CAPITAL GAINS OF ` 3,09,11,561/- AS ORIGINALLY OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND DETERMINED THE INCOME AT ` 4,38,44,341/-. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE OF THE LAND AT MORAI VILLAGE VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 23-08-2011 IN IT A NO. 336/10-11 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: '11. IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT ANY LAND CANNOT BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THAT WHETHER' A LA ND IS AN AGRICULTURAL IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED WITH CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE LAND TRANSFERRED WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AS DEFINED UNDER SEC 2 (14) OF I. T. ACT. THERE IS NO CERTIFICATE FROM THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, NO EVIDENCE SHOWING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS, AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES AND ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME OR LOSS THAT WAS MADE. EVEN IN RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME-TAX AFTER JOINT VERIFICATION, T HE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE LAND AS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. NO EVIDENCE HAS ALSO BEEN PRODUCED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LAND THAT WAS TRANSFERRED WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. I THEREFORE, AGREE WITH THE A. O. THAT THE LAND TRANSFERRED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. SINCE THE LAND THAT IS TRANSFERRED IS NOT ESTABLISHED TO BE AN AGRICULTURA L LAND THE ISSUE OF ITS LOCATION WOULD BE IMMATERIAL FOR THE COMPUTATION OF LTCG. - - ITA 410 & 411/15 6 3.1 THE ASSESSEE FURTHER WENT ON APPEAL TO THE ITAT . THE ASSESSEE FILED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE PUBLIC TR ANSPORT DEPARTMENT AS PER WHICH THE LAND WAS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF MORE THAN 8 KMS FROM AVADI LIMITS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE VAO THAT THE LAND WAS GIVEN ON LEASE TO M/S. VEL HORTICULTUR ES LTD FOR DOING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. AS THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THE ITAT WAS NOT CONSIDERED ORIGINA LLY BY THE AO, THE ITAT SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFR ESH AFTER VERIFYING ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND THEREAFTER PA SSING A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DECISION OF T HE ITAT IN ITA NO. 1779/MDS/2011 DATED 16 TH MARCH, 2012 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE IMPUGNED LAND AS A CAPITAL ASSET LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX ON THE GROUND THAT THE PLOT OF LAND WAS SITUATED BEYOND THE NOTIFIED LIMIT OF 8 KMS FROM THE NEAREST - - ITA 410 & 411/15 7 AVADI MUNICIPALITY, THE LAND WAS BARREN AS REPORTED BY THE INSPECTOR, NO CROP WAS GROWN ON THE LAND AND THAT THE PLOT OF LAND WAS TRANSFERRED TO A TRUST RUNNING ENGINEERING COLLEGES WITH A VIEW TO GET THE DEEMED UNIVERSITY STATUS. THE ID. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE VERY SAME REASONS. WE OBSERVE THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ID. A.R MADE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ID. CIT/DR. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SUCH AS, CERTIFICATE FROM VAO, MORAL VILLAGE, CERTIFYING THA T THE LAND SOLD WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND, CERTIFICATE FR OM GENERAL. MANAGER, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION [CHENNAI] LTD CERTIFYING THAT MORAL VILLAGE IS SITUATED 10 KMS AWAY FROM AVADI, ROUGH SKETCH OF THE AVAILABLE APPROACH ROAD TO THE LAND SOLD, BY THE DEPUTY SURVEYOR, AMBATTUR TALUK, TO IMPRESS UPON THAT THE LAND SOLD WAS SITUATED MORE THAN 8 KMS FROM THE AVADI TALUK, WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS NO REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THESE EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, NO REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHY THE INSPECTOR'S REPORT SHOULD BE RELIED UPON AND THE CERTIFICATES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE IGNORED. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ID. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFRESH. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD . A.R OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE . ASSESSING OFFICER FOR READJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND THEREAFTER PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING T O - - ITA 410 & 411/15 8 THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3.2. IN THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT MADE AFRESH, THE AO HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARIFABIBI MOHAMAD IBRAHIM V CLT (204 ITR 631) A ND HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE'S LAND WAS NOT AGRICUL TURAL LAND, AS IT DOES NOT FULFIL THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN BY THE COURT IN THE AFORESAID DECISION. THE AO HAS ALSO STATED I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE LAND WAS BARREN WHEN THE INSPECTOR INSPECTED THE LAND, AND THE BUYER WAS NOT AN AGRICULTURIST AND THE LAND WAS SITUATED IN A DEVELO PED AREA. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) RW S 254 RWS 153A OF THE ACT BY DENYING THE ASSESSEE'S C LAIM OF EXEMPTION ON THE PROFIT ON SALE OF THE LAND AT M ORAI VILLAGE AND THE PROFIT WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS CAPITAL GAINS AS THE LAND WAS NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND AT AN AMOUNT OF ` 4,38,44,341/-. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF SMT. SAKU NTHALA RANGARAJAN, AN AMOUNT OF ` 3,06,74,615/- TREATED AS CAPITAL GAINS ON TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET. AGGRIE VED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEES WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE - - ITA 410 & 411/15 9 CIT(APPEALS). 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE EARLIER APPELLATE ORDERS IN THIS CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT I N VIEW OF THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE WHICH WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE HIM IN PARTICULAR THE CERTIFICATE OF THE VAO, CERTIFICATES FROM THE DEPUTY SURVEYOR AMBATTUR TALUK AND GENERAL MANAGER, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CHENNAI) LTD'S CERTIFYING THE LAND TO BE SITUATED AT A DISTANCE MORE THAN 8 KM FROM AVADI MUNICIPALITY AND LEASE DEED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE, OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS & M/S. VEL HORTICULTURES LEASING THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, WHICH HAD BEE N ACCEPTED IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ALSO AS A SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT A DISTANCE MORE THAN 8 KILOMETRES FROM THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY (AVADI). T HE AO , AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE LETTER NO. 5729/2013/A1 DATE D 03.08.2013 FROM MRS. M. BHUSHNA DEVI, TEHSILDAR, - - ITA 410 & 411/15 10 AMBATTUR (SUPRA), HAD MADE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES WI TH REGARD TO THE DISTANCE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION FROM THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY (AVADI), THE RESULT OF WHICH C LEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT SITUATED WIT HIN A DISTANCE OF 8KMS FROM THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY. NO REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE REPORT OF THE TEHSILDAR (SUPRA). WITH REGARD TO THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTO R THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF 5.5 KMS, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO AND BEFORE T HE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ROUTE USED BY THE INSPECTOR T O REACH THE LAND IS A PRIVATE ROAD LAID AND MAINTAINE D BY CRPF AND HENCE PUBLIC HAVE NO FREE ACCESS, AS THE S AID ROAD IS NOT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE LOCAL ADMINIST RATION. 4.1 WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT, THE CIT(AP PEALS) HELD THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDG MENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF MRS. SHAKUNTHALA VEDACHALAM AND MRS. VANITHA MANICKAVASAGAM, WHICH IS REPORTED IN 369 ITR 558 AN D - - ITA 410 & 411/15 11 FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES LAND IN QUESTION IS AN AGRICULT URAL LAND SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF MORE THAN 8 KMS FROM THE NEAREST AVADI MUNICIPALITY AND THE PROFIT ON SALE O F SUCH LAND IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX AND HE DELETED THE ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF THE SAID LAND. AGAINST THIS , THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS A CAPITAL ASSET, AS IT IS SITUATED WITHIN THE DISTANC E OF 8 KMS. FROM THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY LIMIT (AVADI). FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION, THE AO DISPUTED THE CERTI FICATES ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SURVEYOR AMBATTUR TALUK AND GENERAL MANAGER, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CHENNAI) LTD., AS PER WHICH THE LAND WAS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF MORE THAN 8 KMS. FROM AVADI MUNICIPALIT Y. THE AO HAS ALSO DISPUTED THE LEASE DEED BETWEEN THE - - ITA 410 & 411/15 12 ASSESSEE, OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS AND M/S. VEL HORTICULTURES LEASING THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL OPE RATIONS, WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND AS A SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS ALSO MADE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES FROM THE TEHSILDAR, AMBATTUR WITH REGARD TO THE DISTANCE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. THE RESULT SHOWED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT SITUATED WITHIN A DISTANCE OF 8 KMS . FROM THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY. THE AO WAS NOT READY TO ACCEPT THIS CERTIFICATE AND HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY RE ASON FOR THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE INSPECTOR REPORTED THA T THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF 5.5. KMS. FROM THE NEAREST AVADI MUNICIPALITY. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT TO REACH THE LAND, TH ERE IS A PRIVATE ROAD, WHICH IS LAID AND MAINTAINED BY THE C RPF, IN WHICH PUBLIC HAS NO ACCESS. THUS, THE CONTENTIO N OF THE DR THAT THE NEAREST ROUTE IS TO BE CONSIDERED T O ACCESS THE DISTANCE OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE NEARES T MUNICIPALITY LIMIT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE DISTANCE TO BE MEASURED FROM THE ACCESSIBLE ROA D - - ITA 410 & 411/15 13 AND NOT FROM THE ROAD MADE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CRPF. 6. IN OUR OPINION, TEHSILDAR IS THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE, WHICH IS TO BE ACCE PTED. FURTHER, THE DISTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS TO B E MEASURED IN TERMS OF THE APPROACH BY ROAD AND NOT B Y A STRAIGHT-LINE DISTANCE ON HORIZONTAL PLANE OR AS PE R CROWS FLIGHT AS HELD BY THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. SATINDER PAL SINGH (229 CTR 82). I N VIEW OF THIS, THE AO HAS NO MATERIAL TO PROVE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DISTANCE OF THE LAND AS ON DATE OF SALE HAS TO BE HELD MORE THAN 8 KMS. FROM THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY, IS NOT CORRECT. THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE ONE ESSENTIAL CONDITION THAT THE LAND OWNED BY HIM OR HER IS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE MORE THAN 8 KMS. FROM THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY, WHICH WA S PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. TO SUM UP, IN OUR OPINION, THE DISTANCE HAS TO BE MEASURED IN TERMS OF THE APPROAC H BY ROAD AND NOT BY A STRAIGHT-LINE DISTANCE ON HORIZON TAL PLANE OR AS PER CROWS FLIGHT. FURTHER, THE ASSESS EE HAS - - ITA 410 & 411/15 14 ALSO PROVED THAT THE LAND WAS SITUATED AT A DISTANC E MORE THAN 8 KMS. FROM THE NEAREST AVADI MUNICIPALITY. 7. MEASUREMENT OF AERIALLY DISTANCE CAME INTO FOR CE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2014 UNDER SEC. 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE ACT AND IT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PRESENT ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10. REGARDING CARRYING OUT OF AGRICULTURA L ACTIVITIES IN THE SAID LAND, THERE IS AN EVIDENCE I N THE FORM OF LEASE DEED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE (AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS) AND M/S. VEL HORTICULTURES LEASING THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, THE LEASING COMPA NY CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AS NOTED BY THE CIT(APPEALS ) IN HIS ORDER, WHICH WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR . AS SUCH IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT A DISTANCE MORE THAN 8 KMS. FROM THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY (AVADI). SIMILAR VIE W HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2716/MDS/20 14 DATED 22.6.2014 IN THE CASE OF KRN PRABHAKARAN (HUF ). THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE - - ITA 410 & 411/15 15 ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR AND WE ARE INCLINED TO DISMI SS THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 9 TH OF OCT., 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . 9 1 : ) ( ; < = >5 ) (V.DURGA RAO) (CHANDRA POOJARI) H 9I /JUDICIAL MEMBER J6 9I/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ;JH 2 /CHENNAI, M9 /DATED, THE 9 TH OCT., 2015. MPO* 9JN 3 4OP QJP4 /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. 1 R4 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 R4 /CIT 5. PS: 4 T /DR 6. :U V2 /GF.