ITO, CHENNAI V. A.A.Parveen, CHENNAI

ITA 982/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77243 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAJI P JACOBADDL
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 54F; 2(14); 147

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . , ! , ' # BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.982/MDS./2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD II(3), NEW BLOCK,4 TH FLOOR, 121,MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. SMT A.A.PARVEEN, NEW BLOCK NO.18,OLD NO.45, PUDUPET GARDEN STREET, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI 600 014. PAN AAPPP 8199 L ( !$ / APPELLANT ) ( %&!$ / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHAJI P JACOB,ADDL. CIT DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.VASUDEVAN,ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 17.04.2014 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.05.2014 ' / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)- IV, CHENNAI ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 2 DATED 29.01.2013 IN ITA NO.550/2011-12, PASSED UN DER SECTION143(3), READ WITH SECTIONS 147 & SEC. 250 O F THE ACT. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THREE ARGUMENTATIVE & EL ABORATE A GROUND IN ITS APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE ISSU E IS THAT:- THE LD.CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F ` 2,99,59,248/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER UN DER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSETS TRANS FERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM TAX BY VIRTUE OF SEC.2(14) OF THE ACT . 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, RETIRED FROM SERVICE AS JOINT DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL A ND RURAL HEALTH SERVICES FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 28.08.2008 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 7,34,146/-. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, AMONGST OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME, ONE OF THE SOURCE DECLARED WAS THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SALE OF HER LAND AT KAZHITATTUR AMOUNTING TO ` 3,05,00,000/- AGAINST WHICH SHE CLAIMED EXEMPTION FROM THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAIN TAX UNDER ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 3 SEC.54/54B/54D/54EC/54F/54G & 54GA OF THE ACT. TH EREAFTER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 25.07.2011 IN ORDER TO CLARIFY HER LEG AL STAND ON THE ISSUE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LETTER IS EXTRACTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFEREN CE:- (II) IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY ME FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 28.08.2008, MY ERSTWHILE CHARTERED ACCOU NTANT HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF A GRICULTURAL LAND AT KAZHIPATTUR VILLAGE U/S. 54F OF THE ACT, EX PLAINING THE COST OF PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTIES, OUT OF THE SA ID SALE PROCEEDS. (III) THE LAND AT KAZHIPATTUR VILLAGE, CHENGALPET DISTRICT, IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND WITH COCONUT TREES. THE LAND IS 22 KMS AWAY FROM CORPORATION LIMITS AND 20 KMS FROM TAMBAR AM MUNICIPAL LIMITS. HENCE, IT DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF CAPITAL ASSET AS DEFINED IN SEC.2 (14) OF THE I.T .ACT. (IV) IN VIEW OF THIS, MY CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 5 4F OF THE ACT, IN MY ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 28.08.2008 WA S A MISTAKE WHICH HAS RESULTED BECAUSE OF MY ERSTWHILE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, NOT UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS P ROPERLY. ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 4 THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THE FRESH CLA IM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE HER AFORESAID LETTER TO TREAT THE LAN DS SOLD AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT TENABLE IN LAW BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAD NO POWER TO ENTERTAIN ANY FRESH CLAIM OTHERWISE THAN BY A RE VISED RETURN. WHILE ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE CASE (I) GOETZ (INDIA) LTD. VS. L D. CIT IN 204 CTR 182 (SC) AND (II) ACIT VS. CAVINKARE PVT. LTD (ITAT ,CHENNAI) REPORTED IN 307 ITR (AT) 356. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS THE LD. A.O HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAINS TREATING THE VACANT LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LAND CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. 3.1. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OPINED THAT EVEN ON MERITS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE VACANT LAND A S AGRICULTURAL LAND DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- I) THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE T O SHOW THAT SHE HAS UNDERTAKEN AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS IN HER LAND. II) HER RETURN OF INCOME FILED DURING THE EARLIER Y EARS SHOW THAT SHE HAD NOT DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE LAND. ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 5 III) THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS CARRYING ON ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY CONNECTED WIT H MAINTENANCE OF TRESS, PLOUGHING, MANURING, WATERING OF THE LAND ETC. IV) THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT REVEAL THE EXISTENCE OF ANY CROP, TREES, WELL OR BORE WELL IN THE LAND TO SUGGEST THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. V) THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AL SO NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS IN THE LAND. VI) THE LAND WAS SITUATED AT OLD MAHAPALIPURAM ROA D AT KAZHIPATTUR VILLAGE RECENTLY RENAMED AS RAJIV GANDHI SALAI WHIC H FALLS WITHIN THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (I.T) CORRIDOR OF THE CITY WHEREIN MANY PROMINENT I.T COMPANIES AND I.T PARKS ARE IN THE NEAR VICINITY. IN THE ENTIRE BELT THERE ARE MUSHRO OMING GROWTH OF MULTI STORIED STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENTS. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES THE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER HELD THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS AGRI CULTURAL LAND AND ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 6 THE CAPITAL GAINS DERIVED FROM THE SAME CANNOT BE T REATED AS EXEMPT FROM TAX. 4. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A), AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE IN DETAIL, THE LD. CIT (A) M ADE A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT:- THE LANDS ARE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND ARE UNDER AGRI CULTURAL USE BY THE ASSESSEE, AS ON THE DATE OF SALE, AND AL SO THE LANDS ARE SITUATED BEYOND THE SPECIFIED LIMITS OF 8 KMS. FROM THE OUTER LIMITS OF THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY O R CANTONMENT BOARD, THEY DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE DEFINITION CAPITAL ASSETS U/S. 2(14) OF THE ACT. ALL OTHER CRITERIA OR THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE NOT RELEVANT. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE LANDS ARE AGRICULTURAL LANDS A ND THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL LANDS A RE NOT LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS TAX U/S.45 OF THE ACT 4.1. LD.CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT :- (A) THE LANDS UNDER QUESTION ARE AGRICULTURAL LAN DS, AS PER THE REVENUE RECORDS, AND ARE UNDER AGRICULTURAL USE BY GROWING COCONUT TREES, AS PER THE VAOS CERTIFICATE. (B) THE LANDS ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD AND ALSO BEYOND TH E ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 7 DISTANCE OF 8 KMS FROM THE OUTER LIMITS OF THE NEAR EST MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD. (C) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT USED THE LANDS FOR ANY O THER PURPOSE, EXCEPT GROWING COCONUT TREES, TILL THE DATE OF SALE . FURTHER, THE LAND IS SOLD AS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND ONLY. (D) NON-SHOWING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME, OWING TO NIL OR NEGATIVE PROFITS, IS NOT A DECISIVE FACTOR TO DECIDE WHETHER THE LANDS ARE AGRICULTURAL LANDS OR NOT. (E) HIGHER SALE PRICE OF THE LANDS AND THE LOCATION OF THE LANDS IN A POSH OR DEVELOPED AREAS ETC ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING WHETHER THE LANDS ARE AGRICULTU RAL LANDS OR NOT. (F) THE NATURE OF THE BUYER AND THE PURPOSE FOR W HICH THE LANDS ARE LIKELY TO BE USED BY THE BUYER ARE ALSO NOT REL EVANT FOR DECIDING WHETHER THE LANDS ARE AGRICULTURAL LANDS O R NOT, IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER. 5. THE LD.CIT (A), THEREAFTER ANALYZING THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SARIFA BIBI MD. IBRAHIM V S. CIT REPORTED IN 204 ITR 632 (SC), AND THE DECISION OF THE HON. GUJA RAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT (A) VS. SIDDHARTH DESAI REPORTED IN 13 9 ITR 628 (GUJ.) WHICH WERE HEAVILY RELIED ON BY THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER, OBSERVED THAT:- ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 8 THE ABOVE DECISION OF SARIFA BIBI MOHAME D IBRAHIM VS. LD. CIT (204 ITR 632)(SC), IS WITH REFERENCE TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1970-71 (I.E.F.Y.1969-70), WHERE TH E STATUTES PROVIDE FOR EXCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND S FROM THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET. NO OTHER DETAILS OR DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS OR CLASSIFICATIONS OF AGRICULTUR AL LANDS ETC ARE PROVIDED FOR IN THE STATUTES. HENCE, THE SUPRE ME COURT POSTULATED THE ABOVE 13 FACTORS TO DECIDE WHETHER A PARTICULAR LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14) ARE, AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1970, BY INTRODUCING TH E PRESENT AMENDMENTS AT CLAUSE (III). AS A RESULT, TH E AGRICULTURAL LANDS HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED INTO THREE TYPES I.E. I. THOSE LOCATED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF M UNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARDS; II. THOSE LOCATED WITHIN THE DISTANCE OF NOT EXCEED ING 8 KMS, FROM THE OUTER LIMITS OF THE NEAREST MUNICIPAL ITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD, AS NOTIFIED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZET TE; AND III. ALL OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS, I.E. OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN (I) AND (II) ABOVE. ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 9 THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHICH ARE MENTIONED AT (I) AND (II) ABOVE ARE SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT INTO THE DEFINITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET U/S.2(14) OF THE ACT. ALL OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE AMBIT OF CAPITAL ASSETS FROM 1970 ONWARDS. ALL THE 13 FACTORS/INDICATORS POSTULATED BY THE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARIFA BIBI MOHAMED IBRAHIM V. CIT (204 ITR 632)(SC), CAN BE BASICALLY DIVIDED INTO 3 BROAD CLA SSIFICATIONS, I.E. I. LOCATION OF THE LANDS; II. NATURE OF THE LANDS AND THEIR USE; AND III. NATURE OF THE SALE OF THE LANDS AS A RESULT OF THE AMENDMENT TO SEC.2(14) BY T HE FINANCE ACT, 1970, ALL THE FACTORS/INDICATORS OF SARIFA BIB I MOHAMED IBRAHIM V. CIT (204 ITR 632)(SC), RELATING TO THE LOCATION OF THE LANDS, THE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES, URBANIZATI ON OF THE AREA IN WHICH THE LANDS ARE LOCATED, ETC. ARE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE STATUTE ITSELF. THIS LEAVES ONLY TWO OTHER MAJ OR CRITERIA TO BE SEEN, I.E.; ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 10 (I) WHETHER THE LANDS ARE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AS PE R THE REVENUE RECORDS AND ARE UNDER AGRICULTURAL USE BY T HE ASSESSEE AS ON THE DATE OF SALE; (II) THE NATURE OF THE SALE, I.E. WHETHER THE LAND WAS SOLD AS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND TO ONE OR FEW PERSONS OR SOLD TO VARIOUS PERSONS BY CONVERTING INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND/OR BY DIVIDING INTO PLOTS, ETC. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LANDS ARE AGRICULTURAL LA NDS AND ARE UNDER AGRICULTURAL USE TILL THE LANDS ARE SOLD BY T HE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS ON LY, THAT TOO, TO ONE PERSON ONLY. THEREFORE, BOTH OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA ARE FULFILLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COUR T AND ALSO OTHER COURTS THE BALANCED CONSIDERATION OF TOTALITY OF TH E CIRCUMSTANCES HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER A PARTICULAR LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 2(14) OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ALMOST ALL THE 13 FACTORS/INDICAT ORS GIVEN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARIFA BIBI MOHAMED I BRAHIM V. CIT (204 ITR 632)(SC), ARE FULFILLED IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURAL LA ND AND DOES NOT ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 11 CONSTITUTE A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SE C.2(14) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL LAND IS, TH EREFORE, NOT LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF ` 2,99,59,248/-, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND DELETED. 6. BEFORE US LD. A.R. HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME BY REITERATING TH E FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A). LD. D.R ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF THE ITAT CHENNAI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SRI SUBRAMANIAM V ADIVEL VIDE ORDER DATED 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 (ITA NO.2118/MDS./2012) AND FURTHER ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE CONFIRMED . 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY P ERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE PRELIMINARY ISS UE BEFORE US IS TO ADJUDICATE WHETHER THE LANDS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE I S AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE SCOPE OF CAPITAL ASSET AS DEFINED IN SEC.2 (14)(III) OF THE ACT AND THEREBY ANY GAIN ARISING FROM THE ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 12 TRANSFER OF THE LAND IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL G AIN TAX U/S. 45 OF THE ACT. FROM THE FACTS BEFORE US, IT IS EVIDENT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE RELEVANT REVENUE RECORDS SUCH AS PATT A, AND CHITTA ADANAGAL TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PRODUCED THE CERTIFICATES FROM TH E VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (VAO) TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LAND SOLD BY HER WAS AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THERE IS ALSO A FINDING BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH-PAGE-10 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE INSPECTOR D EPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE VAO CONFIRMED THAT THE LANDS SOLD BY THE ASSESS EE WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND WHEREIN COCONUT TREES WERE GROWN DURING THE YEAR 2007. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FURNISHED PHOTOGRAPHS OF HER COCONUT FARM WHICH IS THE RELEVANT LAND IN QUESTION IN SUPP ORT OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VAO TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LANDS SOLD BY HER WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE SAME IS MADE AS A PART OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AT PAGE-11. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGRIC ULTURAL LAND WHEREIN COCONUT TREES ARE PLANTED IN A SYSTEMATIC AND ARRAN GED FASHION. SINCE THESE TREES ARE GROWN UP, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 13 CONTINUED WITH THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, OTHERWI SE SUCH AN EXTENT OF COCONUT FARM WOULD NOT HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE. FU RTHER THE BELIEF OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOW N ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HER RETURN OF INCOME DURING THE SUCCEEDI NG PREVIOUS YEARS, CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE NUMBE R OF REASONS TO SHOW THAT THE SHE HAD NOT DERIVED INCOME FROM THE A GRICULTURAL LAND DURING SUCH PERIOD. MOREOVER, THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS COCONUT FARM AND FROM SUCH FARM, INCOME WILL START TO FOLLO W ONLY AFTER THE MATURITY OF THE TRESS. THERE WILL BE A LONG GESTATI ON PERIOD FOR THE TREES TO YIELD FRUITS AFTER THE SAPLINGS ARE PLANTED. TH EREFORE, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT AT ALL APPRECIA BLE AND ACCEPTABLE. FURTHER, THE PRICE OF THE LAND MAY VARY DUE TO VARI OUS FACTORS. THE ACT HAS PROVIDED ONLY CERTAIN CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT T O THE LOCATIONS OF THE LAND, FULFILLING WHICH THE LAND WILL FALL WITHI N THE SCOPE OF CAPITAL ASSET AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT AS R IGHTLY POINTED OUT AND ELABORATELY DISCUSSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN HIS OR DER. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD HER AGRICULTURAL LAND TO A NON-AG RICULTURIST AND FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THE LAND HELD BY HER TIL L THE DATE OF SALE WILL ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 14 NOT LOSE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LA ND BECAUSE THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS IN THE ACT FOR SUCH INFERENCE. THEREF ORE, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE LAN D BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AS NON-AGRICULTURE LAND IS ERRONEOUS. FUR THER THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ELABORATELY ANALYZED AND DISCUSSED THE ISSUE, A ND HAS FAIRLY ARRIVED AT A CORRECT CONCLUSION IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH HIS O RDER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE US. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS CONFIRMED. 7.1 WE ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE P OINTS OUT ANY LEGAL GROUND AND REQUEST THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER TO GRANT APPROPRIATE RELIEF AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT , THEN THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUND TO GRAND SUCH RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE IF THE ACTS PROVIDE SO. IT WOULD BE ERRONEOUS ON THE P ART OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO SIMPLY BRUSH ASIDE THE CONTENT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR SUCH CLAIM JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE SUCH CLAIM IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED BY THE LD. AS SESSING OFFICER IN ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 15 GOETZ INDIA LTD. VS. LD. CIT REPORTED IN 204 CTR 1 82 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US. 7.2 FURTHER, THE DECISION OF THE CASE IN ACIT V S. SRI SUBRAMANIAM VADIVEL VIDE ORDER DATED 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 (ITA NO.2118/MDS./2012) CITED BY THE LD. D.R IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACT S OF THE CASE BEFORE US BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THERE WAS A CATEGORICAL FINDIN G WHICH COULD NOT BE REBUTTED THAT THE LAND WAS NOT USED FOR AGRICULTURA L PURPOSES AS THERE WERE NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS DURING THE REL EVANT PREVIOUS YEAR IN HER LAND. HENCE THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 9 TH MAY, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 9 TH MAY, 2014. K S SUNDARAM. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE ITA NO.982/MDS/13 SMT A A PARVEEN 16