Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member - This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad dated 31.1.2012 for assessment year 2008-09.

2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is not only perverse but is erroneous on facts and in law and is prejudicial to the appellant.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the land sold by the appellant is not an agricultural land on the ground that its character did not remain as agriculture on the date of sale, and further erred in relying on the decisions to support such stand without putting them across to the appellant for explanation.

3. The learned CIT(A) while deciding the issue whether the land sold is agricultural or not when relying on decisions that are not put to the appellant erred in not looking into the decisions that are relied upon by the assessee and further erred in not appreciating the fact that in one such decision (292 ITR 481) their lordships has also considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifa Bibi Mohd. Ibrahim (204 ITR 631) and still it is held that the land is agricultural in spite of the fact that the pu