K.Badal Bai, Legal Heir of Late Sri A.Kewalchand, Gudiyatham V. DCIT, Vellore

ITA 551/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68706 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: H PADAMCHAN D KHINCHA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income
• Section: 143(3); 131; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR.O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 551/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. K. BADAL BAI, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE A. KEWALCHAND, 89, SANTHAPET, GUDIYATAM 632 602 [PAN : AJZPK2435K] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, VELLORE, TAMIL NADU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI H. PADAMCHAND KHINCHA, FCA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N. MADHAVAN, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 10.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.09.2013 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IX, CHENNA I DATED 21.12.2012 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE DECEASED A SSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF JEWELLERY AND REAL ESTATE DEALER. THE A SSESSEE HAS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.551 551551 551/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 2 DECLARED TOTAL INCOME AT ` .33,55,100/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED INITIALLY UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND FINA LLY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS I SSUED A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND CALLED FOR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HARD COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME, BALANCE SHEET, TRADING, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 44AB. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE C.A. OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE HEARING AND PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DETAILS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISS UED SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT, REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE SHRI A. KEWAL CHANDS PERSONAL ATTENDANCE IN THE INCOME TAX OFFICE AND TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED ASSESSEES SWORN STATEMENT UND ER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD CERTAIN IMMOVABLE PROPER TY SITUATED AT ARASAKUPPAM IN HOSUR TALUK FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATIO N OF ` .1,15,35,000/- TO M/S. ALCHEMY LEISURE & RESORTS PV T. LTD. ON 31.12.2008 VIDE TWO SALE DEEDS. THE ASSESSEE HAD EA RNED PROFIT OF ` .1,07,38,150/- IN THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT EXCESS IN SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT LIABLE T O TAX AS THE AGRICULTURAL I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.551 551551 551/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 3 LAND SOLD IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET AND NO CAPITAL GAI N ARISES OUT OF SALE TRANSACTION. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR RELEVANT S ALE DEEDS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE TRANSACTION AND THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE FOLLOW ING PROPERTIES AND SOLD THE SAME TO M/S. ALCHEMY LEISURE & RESORTS PVT. LTD., JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE: SI. NO. DATE OF PURCHASE DOCUMENT NO./S.R.O VENDOR NAME SURVEY NO. EXTENT PURCHASED (IN ACRES) 1. 29.09.2008 1302/08 DENKANIKOTTA RAJAPPA AND OTHERS 627/1 627/2 635 0.15 0.19 0.70 2. 08.02.2007 683/2007 DENKANIKOTTA HARI SABU REPRESENTING HIS PRINCIPLES 951/1 0.96 3. 08.02.2007 686/2007 DENKANIKOTTA HARI BABU REPRESENTING HIS PRINCIPLES 967/2 1.78 4. 08.02.2007 684/2007 DENKANIKOTTA HARI BABU REPRESENTING HIS PRINCIPLES 1063/2 1064/3 1092/1 0.80 1.25 0.85 5. 08.02.2007 687/2007 DENKANIKOTTA HARI BABU REPRESENTING HIS PRINCIPLES 1068/7 1064/1 1069/2 0.42 0.38 1.33 6. 29.06.2007 2972/2007 VENKATESH 649/1B 649/2A2 0.61 0.09 7. 29.06.2007 2971/2007 VENKATESH 634/4 636/3 637/3 637/2 648/2 634/2 634/3 636/2 634/1 636/1 0.31 0.52 0.54 1.12 0.45 0.13 0.15 0.84 0.57 1.24 I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.551 551551 551/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 4 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ABO VE LAND, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IS AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY AND THEREFORE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX TO ENQUIRE INTO THE MATTER AND SUBMIT THE REPORT. THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX ALON G WITH ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE AND ASSESSEES EMPLOYEE VISITED ARAS AKUPPAM AND AFTER ENQUIRY, THE INSPECTOR HAS SUBMITTED HIS REPORT AND RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPORT READS AS UNDER: AS DIRECTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX, VELLORE, I VISITED THE LAND SOLD BY SHRI. A.KEWAL CHAND, GUDIY ATTAM (PAN: AJZPK2435K). THE LAND IS SITUATED IN A VILLAGE AT A RASAKUPPAM WHICH IS 4.5 KM FROM THE KILAMANGALAM (SPECIAL GRADE TOWN PANCHAYAT) AND ABOUT 23KM FROM HOSUR TOWN. I HAVE BEEN DULY ASSIST ED BY THE EMPLOYEE OF SHRI. A.KEWAL CHAND WHO GUIDED ME TO TH E SITE OF THE LAND. THE LAND IS SITUATED AT ROAD SIDE. I OBSERVED THAT THE BORDERS OF THE SAID LAND ARE FENCED. THE ASSESSEE'S EMPLOYEE STATED THA T THE LAND IS ABOUT 6.50 ACRES. THERE IS NO WATER SOURCES LIKE RIVER, L AKE, TANK, CANAL, WELL OR BORE-WELL EITHER IN THE LAND OR ANYWHERE IN THE VICINITY. I ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ENTIRE STRETCH OF LAND LOOKED BAR REN AND NO IRRIGATION FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE WHATSOEVER. FROM THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE C ONCLUSION THAT THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NO IRRIGATION FACILIT Y AND IS A BARREN LAND AND THE LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT SUITABLE FOR AGRICULTUR AL PURPOSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO RECORDED A STATEMENT OF THE ASSESS EE UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE IS NO WELL, TANK, LAKE, CANAL OR ANY OTHER WA TER SOURCE IN THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.551 551551 551/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 5 NEIGHBOURING LAND ALSO FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS FAR AWAY FROM HIS NATIVE PLACE IN GUDIYATHAM IN VELLORE DISTRICT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY HE HAS PURCHASED THE L AND WHICH IS FAR AWAY. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEES UNCLES DAUGHTER IS IN HOSUR WHO HA S SUGGESTED HIM TO BUY THE LAND. MOREOVER, THERE ARE SOME COMPANIES CULTIV ATING AND EXPORTING ROSE FLOWER IN HOSUR TALUK. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CULTIVATED ANY CROP IN TH AT LAND. THE LAND WAS SOLD WITHIN TWO YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE. THE BUYER ALSO NO T CULTIVATED THE LAND AND THE LAND IS NOT FIT FOR CULTIVATION BECAUSE OF NON- AVAILABILITY OF WATER. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI A. KEWAL CHAND, IN HIS SWORN STATEMEN T UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT DATED 16.12.2011 STATED THAT HE WAS CARRYIN G ON REAL ESTATE BUSINESS FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS AND M/S. AMBALAL REAL ESTATES BELONG TO ASSESSEES FAMILY MEMBERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER VERIFI CATION OF THE INCOME TAX RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR SHOWED THAT HE HAS BEEN PURCHASING AND SELLING AGRICULTURAL LAND ON RE GULAR BASIS AND THE DETAILS ARE AS UNDER: F.Y. TOTAL AREA OF LAND SOLD TOTAL CONSIDERATION 2007-08 20.95 ACRES ` .7,28,000 2006-07 ABOUT 25 ACRES `. 12,03,409 2005-06 336.625 SQ.FT. `. 41,666 2004-05 NOT KNOWN `. 4,31,666 I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.551 551551 551/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 6 5. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS O NLY TO MAKE A PROFIT AND NOT TO CULTIVATE THE LAND. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF A LL FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT EARN ED BY THE ASSESSEE OF ` .1,07,38,105/- ON SALE OF LAND AT ARASAKUPPAM IS TA XABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS O R PROFESSION. ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS TAXED THE SAME AND ASSESSMENT W AS COMPLETED WITH THE ABOVE ADDITION. 6. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 7. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF JEWELLERY AND FINANCE AND HAD BEEN CARRYING ON ACTIVITY OF AGRICULTURE FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS. HE IS ALSO HAVIN G AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS AND HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS SESSEES FAMILY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE IS IRRELEVANT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CONSIDERING THE DETAILED FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AGREED WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFI RMED THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ISSUE. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.551 551551 551/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 7 8. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN IN AGRICULTURE FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS. THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE INTENTION TO CARRY CULTIVATION AN D NOT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. HE ALSO POINTED OUT FROM THE REVENUE RECORD THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS CARRYING AGRICULTURE I.E. CROPS LIKE RAGI AND MAIZE AND THE REFORE, THE SALE PROCEED RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS A GRICULTURAL INCOME AND NO CAPITAL GAIN TAX CAN BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD ON ACREAGE BASIS AND NOT ON PLOT BASIS. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE LAND FOR A NOMINAL PRICE APPROXIMATEL Y PER ACRE AT ` .50,000/- AND SOLD APPROXIMATELY AT ` .7.00 LAKHS PER ACRE WITHIN A SPAN OF TWO YEARS. THEREFORE, THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TO CARRY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND ONLY PROFIT MAKING. THE ASSESSEE, BEING AN AGRI CULTURIST PURCHASED THE DRY LAND WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY AGRICULTURAL FACIL ITIES, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT ANY WATER SOURCE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO CARRY OUT AGRICULT URAL OPERATION. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATION. THE LD. DR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME DERI VED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE LAND IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THE LANDS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND AND INCOMES DERIVED OUT OF THE SA LE OF THE ABOVE LANDS ARE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.551 551551 551/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 8 TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. HE STRONGLY SUPPO RTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE RECORDS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN IN HIS RETURN OF IN COME THAT HE HAS DERIVED AGRICULTURAL INCOME, NOT PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD T O THE ABOVE PROPERTY BUT SHOWN OUT OF ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LD. COUN SEL HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 16.12.2011 WAS NOT GIVEN TO TH E ASSESSEE/LEGAL HEIR. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL S ON RECORD AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ISSUE BEFORE US FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS DATES BETWEEN 08.02.2007 TO 29.09.2008 AND SOLD THE ABOVE LANDS ON 31.12.2008 THEREBY EARNING INCOME IS AN AGRICULTURA L INCOME OR BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF JEWELLER Y AND FINANCE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVE D AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE INCOME TAX RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN P URCHASING AND SELLING AGRICULTURAL LAND ON REGULAR BASIS VIZ., 20.95 ACRE S IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007- 08, ABOUT 25 ACRES IN THE FY 2006-07, 336.625 SQ.FT . IN THE FY 2005-06, ETC. IT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE HABIT OF BUYIN G AND SELLING THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTICED THROUGH SWOR N STATEMENT RECORDED I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.551 551551 551/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 9 UNDER SECTION 131 ON 16.12.2011 THAT THE ASSESSEE I S CARRYING REAL ESTATE BUSINESS FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS AND THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THAT COPY OF THE STATEMENT WAS NOT GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE OR HIS LEGAL HEIR. HOWEVER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE TRANSACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN FINANCIAL Y EARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEES FAMILY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND CARRYING THE BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STILE OF M/S. AMBALAL REAL ESTATES. 13. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND IN THE YEA R 2007 AND SOLD THE SAME TO M/S. ALCHEMY LEISURE & RESORTS PVT. LTD. ON 31.12.2008 WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME. IT IS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D PURCHASED DRY LAND AND AS PER REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, THE L AND IS SITUATED IN A VILLAGE AT ARASAPAKKAM, WHICH IS 45 KMS AWAY FROM THE KILAM ANGALAM AND 25 KMS AWAY FROM HOSUR TOWN. THE LAND IS SITUATED AT ROAD SIDE AND THE LAND WAS FENCED. THERE WAS NO WATER SOURCES LIKE RIVER, LAKE , TANK, CANAL, WELL OR BORE WELL EITHER IN THE LAND OR ANYWHERE IN THE VICINITY . THE ENTIRE STRETCH OF THE LAND LOOKED BARREN LAND AND NO IRRIGATION FACILITIE S WHATSOEVER ARE AVAILABLE. THE ASSESSEE, KNOWING VERY WELL ALL THE FACTS, HAS PURCHASED THE LAND. THE ASSESSEE RESIDES IN GUDIYATHAM IN VELLORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE AND THE DISTANCE IS MORE THAN 200 KMS. WHEN THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY HE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND IN SUCH A FAR OFF PLACE, I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.551 551551 551/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 10 THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS UNCLES DAUGHT ER HAS SUGGESTED HIM TO BUY THE LAND AND ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD THAT THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE I S AN AGRICULTURAL LAND EXCEPT IN THE REVENUE RECORDS AS SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE AGRICU LTURAL OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE I.E., NAME OF THE CROP CULTIVAT ED, QUANTITY RECEIVED, EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE EXCEPT STATING THAT HE HAS CULTIVATED RAGI AND MAIZE AS PER REVENU E RECORDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS OBSE RVED THAT THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NEARER TO BANGALORE [4 0 KMS], WHICH IS ONE OF THE FAST DEVELOPING METROS, KEEPING THAT IN MIND, T HE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE LAND AND ULTIMATELY SOLD TO A COMPANY WHICH INVOLVED IN HOSPITALITY BUSINESS. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION O F THE FACTS, WE FIND THAT EXCEPT REVENUE RECORDS, THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE RE CORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REALLY CARRIED OUT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVI TIES IN THE LAND. SO FAR AS ENTRY IN THE REVENUE RECORD IS CONCERNED, THE CHENN AI BENCH OF ITAT IN I.T.A. NO. 2164/MDS/2012 & I.T.A. NO. 2165/MDS/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 11.04.2013 IN THE CASE OF SMT. SAKUNTHALA VEDACHALA M AND SMT. VANITHA MANICKAVASAGAM RESPECTIVELY HAS OBSERVED THAT AN ENTRY IN THE REVENUE RECORD AS AN AGRICULTURE WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT EVI DENCE TO HOLD THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE, WHEN ACTUAL AGRICULTURA L USE WAS NOT PROVED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, EXCEPT ENTRY AS STATED ABOVE, THE RE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.551 551551 551/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 11 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT AGRICULTURAL OPER ATION IN THE LAND. SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO NON- SUPPLY OF COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE ASSESS EE RECORDED ON 16.12.2011 IS CONCERNED, THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE L AND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT WAS NOT DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STAT EMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT HAS BEEN DECIDED AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS O THER RELEVANT FACTORS. THEREFORE, THIS ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE AR OF THE AS SESSEE IS REJECTED. AFTER CONSIDERING ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE AND EXAMINING VARIOUS ASPECTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION CANNOT BE AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND WE FIND NO VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 14. SO FAR AS THE DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN I.T.A. NO. 1186/MDS/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.03.2013 RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IS CON CERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THAT LAND WHICH WERE HELD BY HIM FOR A PERIOD RANGING FROM MORE THAN 19 YEARS TO 3 YEARS (APPROXIMATELY) AND THERE IS A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE LAND PURCHASED AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRIC ULTURAL LAND. THERE IS ALSO A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKING AG RICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. WHEREAS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND MOREOVER THE LAND PURCH ASED WERE SOLD WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF THREE MONTHS TO LESS THAN TWO YEARS. HENCE, THE ABOVE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.551 551551 551/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 12 DECISION HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CASE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 24 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 24.09.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE/A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.