The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5586 (Mad-HC) : (2021) 430 ITR 0283 : (2021) 277 TAXMAN 0127

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 263

Mere classification of the land in the revenue record, as agricultural land, did not conclusively prove that the nature of the land was an agricultural land and nothing was brought on record by assessee to establish that the agricultural operations were carried on prior to his purchase and after purchase.Thus, Tribunal erred in interfering the order passed by CIT(A) affirming the order of assessment treating the land as 'non-agricultural land' under the category of 'capital asset' under section 2(14).

Revision under section 263 - Validity - Matter covered by decision of CIT (A) -

Assessee filed a return claiming exemption under section 10(1) with regard to the profit arising on sale for a land on the ground that the land, which was sold was agricultural land. CIT invoking section 263 held that the assessment order suffered from errors and it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly, the same was set aside and AO was directed to cause necessary enquiry giving reasonable opportunity to assessee and to redo the assessment. The assessment was completed by AO treating the land as 'non-agricultural land' under the category of 'capital asset' under section 2(14). Held: Nothing was brought on record by assessee to establish that the agricultural operations were carried on prior to his purchase and after purchase. Moreover, conduct of assessee in selling the property within a short period of one year and the property being used to develop the SEZ ought to have been taken note of by Tribunal while deciding the character of the land, as mere classification of the land in the revenue record, as agricultural land, did not conclusively prove that the nature of the land was an agricultural land. Lands were transferred to non-agriculturists for non-agricultural purpose and this would also be one of the relevant factors to test the case of the assessee.

REFERRED : Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim &Ors. v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 0631 (SC) : 1993 TaxPub(DT) 1509 (SC), Rajiv Dass v. Dy. CIT (2019) 103 Taxmann.com 192 (Del) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 774 (Del-HC), CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi (2018) 404 ITR 173 (Mad) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 203 (Mad-HC), Pr. CIT v. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd. (2016) 388 ITR 514 (Mad) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4323 (Mad-HC), MS Srinivasa Naicker &Ors. v. ITO (2007) 292 ITR 481 (Mad) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 946 (Mad-HC), Fazalbhoy Investment Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 42 Taxman 22 (Bom) : 1989 TaxPub(DT) 590 (Bom-HC), GRK Reddy & Sons (HUF) v. ITO 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2915 (Chen-Trib)

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

A.Y. : 2008-09



IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com