ACIT, UDAIPUR V. M/s. Gattani Resorts Pvt. Ltd., UDAIPUR

ITA 417/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4814 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI B.P JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SAR A THI CHAUDHURY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.417/JODH/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 - 11 ACIT VS. M/S. GATTANI RESORTS PVT. LTD CIRCLE - 1 MAIN ROAD, SUBHASH NAGAR UDAIPUR UDAIPUR PAN NO. AAACG8292P CROSS OBJECTION NO. 21/JODHPUR/2014 (IN ITA NO.417/JODH/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 - 11 M/S GATTANI RESORTS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT MAIN ROAD, SUBHASH NAGAR CIRCLE - 1 UDAIPUR UDAIPU R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY : SH RI R AJENDRA JAIN RE VENUE BY : SHRI RAVINDER MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 22/11/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/11/2016 ORDER PER PARTHA SAR A THI CHAUDHURY , JM FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), UDAIPUR DT. 30/05/2014 UNDER SECTION 143(3) 2 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN 1. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,76,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT DERIVED FROM SALE OF LAND WHICH WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S 10(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RS. 1,35,900/ - ON ACCOUNT OF A LLEGED AGRICULTURE INCOME WHICH WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S 10(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS APPEARING IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11 WAS E - FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28/07/2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 31,33,197/ - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 21/09/2011 WAS ISSUED AND DULY SERVED ON ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE U NDERSIGNED TO JCIT, RANGE - 1, UDAIPUR VIDE ORDER NO. 8 OF 2012 - 13 DATED 19/07/2012 OF CIT UDAIPUR FOR FINALIZATION OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11. IN VIEW OF THIS ANOTHER NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT DT. 26/ 07/2012 INTIMATING CHANGE OF INCUMBENT, WERE ISSUED AND DULY SERVED ON ASSESSEE FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 08/08/2012. SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1)OF THE ACT DATED 14/12/2011, 05/02/2013, 14/02/2013 WERE ALSO ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSES SEE CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS. THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WITH ASSESSED INCOME AT RS. 77,45,100/ - AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.31,33,197/ - . 3 3. THAT, THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF ADDIT ION OF RS. 44,76,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT DERIVED FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE ACT. 4. THAT, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO AND ON GOING THROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME A CCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS IT WAS FOUND BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWN EXEMPT PROFIT FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF RS. 44,76,000/ - AND EXEMPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE ACT OF RS. 1,35,900/ - . DURING THE YEAR SO CALLED AGRICULTURAL LAN D, PROFIT FROM WHICH IS CLAIMED EXEMPT, WAS SOLD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 65,76,000/ - . THE DETAILS OF SALE OF LAND ARE AS UNDER: SR. NO. NAME OF THE BUYER DETAILS OF SALE DOCUMENTS DATE OF DOCUMENT SALE CONSIDERATION 1 AAKAR BUILD ESTATE PVT. L TD. MUMBAI SALE DEED 24/12/2009 29,05,000/ - 2 PEARL REAL MART PVT. LTD. MUMBAI SALE DEED 24/12/2009 29,05,000/ - 3 SHRI. ASHOK KOTHARI SALE AGREEMENT 24/12/2009 5,31,000/ - 4 SHRI. ASHOK KOTHARI SALE AGREEMENT 24/12/2009 2,35,000/ - TOTAL 65,76,000/ - TH E ABOVE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TOTAL COST OF RS. 21,00,000/ - THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: SR. NO. NAME OF THE BUYER DETAILS OF SALE DOCUMENTS DATE OF DOCUMENT PURCHASE CONSIDERATION 1 UDAIPUR AGRONOMICS PVT. LTD. UDAIPUR SALE DEED 26/12/2005 5,00,000/ - 2 UDAIPUR AGRONOMICS PVT. LTD. UDAIPUR SALE DEED 26/12/2005 5,00,000/ - 4 3 UDAIPUR AGRONOMICS PVT. LTD. UDAIPUR SALE DEED 26/12/2005 5,00,000/ - 4 UDAIPUR AGRONOMICS PVT. LTD. UDAIPUR SALE DEED 06/01/2006 2,00,000/ - 5 UDAIPUR AGRONO MICS PVT. LTD. UDAIPUR SALE DEED 07/01/2006 2,00,000/ - 6 SMT. KANKU BAI SALE DEED 02/01/2006 2,00,000/ - TOTAL 21,00,000/ - THE DIFFERENCE PURCHASE AND SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 44,76,000/ - WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT BEING PROFIT FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D. HOWEVER, ONGOING THROUGH THE SALE DEEDS/SALE AGREEMENTS OF THE SO CALLED AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT MORWANIA IT WAS FOUND THE LAND WAS SUCH THAT NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY COULD BE CARRIED OUT FOR ANY CROP AS THE LAND IS A MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN AND WITHO UT ANY IRRIGATION FACILITY. IN THIS REGARD IN THE SALE DEEDS/ AGREEMENTS DATED 24/12/2009 AT CLAUSE 2 IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE LAND WAS MOUNTAINOUS IN NATURE WHERE NO AGRICULTURAL OPERATION WAS POSSIBLE. 5. THAT, BESIDES AO HAD CALLED FOR INFORMATION UND ER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT VIDE LETTER DATED 13/03/2013 FROM THE TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL BADGAUN, UDAIPUR, UNDER WHOSE JURISDICTION THE LAND IS LOCATED. THE TEHSILDAR VIDE HIS LETTER NO. LR/13/272 DT. 15/03/2013 HAD STATED THAT THE LAND IS AT DISTANCE OF 8 KMS FROM UDAIPUR CITY. THIS FACT IS ON RECORD. 6. THAT , THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE PROFIT ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AMOUNTING TO RS. 44,76,000/ - IS EXEMPTED UNDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON VAR IOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. 5 THE AO IN HIS ORDER HELD THAT WHILE THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY BUT THE AO DID NOT FOUND IT TO BE ACCEPTABLE AND THAT THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT RELEVANT TO THE FINDINGS OF THE CASE. THE AO FURTHER HELD IN HIS ORDER THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 7. THAT, IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE AO HELD THAT THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF EXEMPT PROFIT FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT CORRECT AND HENCE THE SAME IS DISALLOWED. THE SUM OF RS. 44,76,000/ - THEREFORE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THAT, THE LD. CIT ON THIS GROUND AGREED WITH THE ARGUME NT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD IN HIS ORDER THAT THE PROFIT ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AMOUNTING TO RS. 44,76,000/ - IS EXEMPTED AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THEREBY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. THAT, BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE US . 10. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND POINTED OUT AT THE TIME OF HEARING THAT THE DELETION OF THIS ADDITION BY THE L D. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER IS NOT AN SPEAKING ORDER AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY COGENT AND VALID REASON FOR HIS DECISION AND IT IS MAINLY VAGUE IN NATURE. 11. THAT, THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6 12. THAT, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION S AND PERUSED THE RECORDS OF THE CASE, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND WE ARRIVE AT OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND IS WHERE THE LAND IS FIT FOR CONDUCTING AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AND WHERE THE SAID LAND S HOULD BE CAPABLE TO PRODUCE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS . THERE ARE VARIOUS JU DICIAL DECISIONS THAT A PIECE OF LAND IN ORDER TO BE CHARACTERIZED AS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE THERE SHOULD BE FACTUALLY AN ONGOING AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AND THAT THE LAND SHOULD BE YIELD CONSEQUENTIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. HOWEVER, IT IS IN RECORD THAT AS MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED SIGNED BY BOTH THE SELLER I.E; ASSESSEE AND THE BUYER. IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS MOUNTAINOUS IN NATURE. 13. THAT, IT IS TO TALLY UNSUITABLE FOR ANY KIND OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AND FURTHER NO IRRIGATION FACILITY IS AVAILABLE AT THE LOCATION OF THE LAND AND WHERE NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AT ALL IS POSSIBLE. 14. THAT, JCIT, RANGE(1) UDAIPUR IN HIS ORDER HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED T HAT ONGOING THROUGH THE KHASRA GIRDHAVRI I.E; LAND RECORDS, ISSUED BY THE PATWARI FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD IN COLUMN NO. 7 THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND IS GIVEN AS MAGRI I.E. MOUNTAIN. SIMILARLY IN COLUMN NO. 8 & 9 WITH REGARD TO IRRIGATED AREA AND DETAI LS OF CROPS TAKEN, THE COLUMNS ARE LEFT BLANK. THESE FACTS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY HAS EVER BEEN CARRIED OUT ON THE SAID LAND IN LAST FOUR YEARS. 7 15. THAT, WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED AGRICU LTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE OF SHOWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN EARLIER YEARS EITHER BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY OR BEFORE US AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS CASE. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE REVENUE RECORDS WOULD NOT SERVE THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. THAT, IN THE CASE OF SARIFABIBI MOHAMMED IBRAHIM & OTHERS VS. CIT (SC) 204 ITR 631, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT A LAND IS NOT AGRICULTURAL SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ENTERED IN TH E REVENUE RECORDS AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. 17. THAT, MOREOVER THE TEHSILDAR OF BADGAUN, UNDER WHOSE JURISDICTION THE LAND IS LOCATED HAS CLEARLY STATED IN HIS LETTER THAT THE LAND IS AT DISTANCE OF 8 KMS FROM UDAIPUR CITY LIMITS AND IN VIEW OF SECTION 2(1A) OF THE ACT AND AS NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE , T HE LAND WITHIN A DISTANCE OF 8 KMS FROM UDAIPUR CITY LIMITS ARE NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND. 18. THAT, THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT OR DISCUSSED ANY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY OR OTHERWISE AND NO REASONING HAS BEEN CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT REGARDING DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND BASED ON THE AFORESAID FINDINGS WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS ISSUE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF R EVENUE ON THIS GROUND. 19. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE REVENUE WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION BY THE LD. CIT(A) OF RS. 1,35,900/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE ACT. WITH REGARD 8 TO THIS THE AO IN HIS ORDER HAS STATED CLEARLY THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED EXEMPT INCOME FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF RS. 1,35,900/ - FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE CURRENT YEAR BUT FOR THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER SHOWN ANY INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVIT Y FROM THE SO CALLED AGRICULTURAL LAND. BESIDES FOR EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO INCUR EXPENSES FOR PURCHASE OF SEED, FERTILIZER, PESTICIDES, TOOLS, TRACTOR AND LABOUR EXPENSES FOR CARRYING OUT VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. HOW EVER, NO SUCH EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED VOUCHERS OF CASH RECEIPT TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM OF RECEIPT FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF RS. 1,35,900/ - AND ALSO AT THE SAME TIME TO MAKE IT A CASE OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT SAID MORWANIA LAND WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. HOWEVER THE AO IN HIS ORDER HELD THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE CASH RECEIPT AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEAR THE NAME AND ADDRESS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE VALUE IN CASH FOR AGRI CULTURAL PRODUCE SOLD. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT NO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE HAS EVER BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, THE AUTHORIZED AGENCY. IT IS ALSO WORTHWHILE TO NOTE HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NEITHER AN AGRICULTURAL NOR A FARMER. THE AO FURTHER HELD THAT THE CASH RECEIPT VOUCHERS FOR THE SALE OF SO CALLED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE DOES NOT BEAR NAME OF PERSON OR ADDRESS WHO HAVE PURCHASED SUCH PRODUCE LIKE ROSE FLOWER, LEMON AND RAJKA(GRASS)FROM THE ASSESSEE AND PAID SUBS TANTIAL CASH FOR THE SAME. 20. THAT, IT IS ALSO MENTIONED IN RECORDS THAT THE LAND BEING MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN WITHOUT ANY IRRIGATION FACILITY WHERE NO AGRICULTURAL OPERATION CAN TAKE 9 PLACE IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD GROW LEMON AND ROSE FLOW ERS ON SUCH BARREN MOUNTAINOUS LAND. THE LAND RECORDS ISSUED BY THE PATWARI DOES NOT INDICATE ANY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. 21. THAT, FURTHER THE AGRICULTURAL IS WITHIN 8 KMS DISTANCE FROM LIMITS OF UDAIPUR CITY. AND THEREFORE, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,35,900/ - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXEMPT IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 22. THAT, TO THIS LD.CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ON THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLAN T THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,35,900 / - DESERVES TO BE DELETED AND THEREFORE ALLOWING THE APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. 23. THAT, BEING AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THIS GROUND. 24. LD. DR RELIED ON TH E ORDER OF THE AO WHERE AS THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS OF THE CASE AND ARRIVE AT OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT IS ON RECORD, AS SESSEE HAS SUBMITTED VARIOUS CASH RECEIPTS TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF RECEIPT FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,35,900/ - BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER SHOWN ANY INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY FROM THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE BASIC EXPEN SES TO BE INCURRED FOR 10 EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF SEED, FERTILIZER, TRACTOR, TOOLS ETC. HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. 26. THAT, EVEN THE CASH RECEIPT VOUCHERS OF SALE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BEAR ANY NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON WHO HAVE PURCHASED SUCH PRODUCE LIKE ROSE FLOWER, LEMON ETC. THAT FOR THE RECORDS AT THE REGISTERED OFFICE CLEARLY STATES THAT IT IS A MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN THEN THE PRODUCTION OF VARIOUS FLOWERS, LEMON IS PRACTICALLY NOT POSSIBLE. 27. THAT, MOREOVER THIS IS FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME BUT IN EARLIER YEARS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THUS EVIDENCES WERE ALSO NOT FURNISHED EITHER BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIY OR BEFO RE US DURING THE TIME OF HEARING. 28. THAT, THE LAND BEING AT A DISTANCE OF 8 KMS FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS AS STATED BY THE LETTER OF THE TEHSILDAR BADGAUN UNDER WHOSE JURISDICTION THE SAID LAND IS LOCATED AND IN VIEW OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL G AZETTE NOTIFICATION AND SECTION 2(1A)OF THE ACT IT IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED WHILE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOWED I N FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 29. NOW WE TAKE UP CROSS OBJECTION WHICH HAS AROSE FORM THE AFORESAID APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A), UDAIPUR WAS FAIR AND JUST IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44 ,76,000/ - MADE BY JCIT, RANGE - 1, UDAIPUR ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT DERIVED FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S10(1) OF THE I.T.ACT. HENCE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) DESERVES TO BE UPHELD ON THE ISSUE. 11 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A), UDAIPUR WAS FAIR AND JUST IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY JCIT, RANGE - 1 UDAIPUR ON ACCOUNT OF RS. 1,35,900/ - AGRICULTURE INCOME WHICH WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S 10(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE SAME DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. 3. THE AP PEAL IN FORM 36 FILED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, UDAIPUR ONE ORIGINAL COPY OF WHICH IS RECEIVED BY THE RESPONDENT IS UNSIGNED HENCE ON THIS GROUND ALONG THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. THE RESPONDENTS REQUESTS ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND, DELETE AND ALTER A LL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS ON OR BEFORE HEARING. 30. GROUND NO. 4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE THEREFORE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 31. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ARE ALREADY DEALT WITH IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL AND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE . 32. SO FAR S THE GROUND NO. 3 IS CONCERNED WE FIND THAT IN RECORDS THE FORM NO. 36 IS DULY SIGNED BY ACIT, CIRCLE - 1 UDAIPUR AND IN VIEW OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT NO M ALICE HAS BEEN DONE NEITHER TO THE EXTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT . THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. 33. IN EFFECT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT . SD/ - SD/ - (B.P. JAIN) ( PARTHA SAR A THI CHA UDHURY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28/11/2016 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, THE CIT(A), THE DR