- (1.) This appeal has been filed by assessee-Mahaveer Yadav challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short-'ITAT') dated 27.02.2018 in his appeal. The Tribunal by the aforesaid order dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 7.2.2017 passed by the CIT(A), Alwar for the assessment year 2011-12.
(2.) Shri Gunjan Pathak, learned counsel for the appellantassessee has argued that the learned ITAT has erred in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) in considering the division of the huge chunk of 10-11 bigha agricultural land into smaller portions of agricultural land for easy viability and sale as income from business and profession instead of income under the head capital gains, even when the appellant had inherited the land from his forefathers and had no intention or a previous track record of being into the business of purchase and sale of properties.
(3.) It is contended that the learned ITAT has erred in confirming the receipt sale of agricultural land as income from business and profession, whereas the appellant had subdivided the agricultural land only because the sale of the huge chunk was not viable and for that purpose, he had to build/develop the approach road to such portions of land. The Assessing Authority has erred in law in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer / CIT (A) without taking into consideration the factors for determining the character of the isolated transactions as income from capital gains or business and profession. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT, 1959 35 ITR 594 (SC) and judgements of various High Courts viz. CIT vs. Sohan Khan, 2008 304 ITR 194 (Raj.), CIT vs. Suresh Chand Goyal, 2008 298 ITR 277 (MP), CIT vs. A.Mohammed Mohideen, 1989 176 ITR 393 (Mad.), CIT vs. MLM Mahalingam Chettiar, 1977 107 ITR 236 (Chennai), CIT vs. Shashi Kumar Agrawal, 1992 195 ITR 767 (All.) and submitted that the appellant had no intention to enter into any kind of adventure in the nature trade or commerce and sold his share in the agricultural land to earn maximum profits only. The land sold by the appellant is in the nature of capital asset acquired by him as inheritance on the demise of his father and is not held by him as stock in trade.;