9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion u/s 50C(1) - Held that:- Sale consideration as per the sale deed with respect to the house property in question is Rs. 17,50,000/- whereas the value arrived at by the Jt. Sub-Registrar is Rs. 17,78,000/-. Since the value arrived at by the Jt. Sub-Registrar is authenticated, the addition of Rs. 14,000/- on account of assessee's share made on account of difference in sale consideration is made by the AO and CIT(A) is hereby confirmed. Against assessee. - ITA No. 12/HYD/2013 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2013 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Ravi Seshagiri Rao For the Respondent : Smt. Amisha S. Gupt ORDER Per Asha Vijayaraghavan, J. M. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad dated 20 th November, 2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee sold agricultural lands at Chengicherala Village and Narsingi Village. Further, the assessee sold 77 guntas of land situated at the above villages for 1,54,00,000/-. The assessee's share was 38 guntas and the net capital gain worked out to Rs. 72,04,540/-. This was claimed to be ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,000/- made by the AO on account of difference in the sale consideration." 7. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record. The grievance of the assessee is that the sale of subject land being agricultural does not constitute a transfer of capital asset for being taxed in the head capital gain when the land is not a capital asset either within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(a) or 2(14)(iii)(b). We find that similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Gousia Begum and others, vide its order dated 16.1.2012 in ITA No. 1024/Hyd/2011 and others, wherein the Bench held as follows:- "12. The next effective grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to computation of capital gains, treating the land sold by the assessee as non- agricultural land. 13. Learned counsel for the assessee, reiterating the contentions urged before the lower authorities submitted that the land sold, being agricultural in nature and falling outside the notified area, does not represent the capital asset of the assessee. In this behalf, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hyderabad Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early evident from the material taken into consideration by the assessing officer. He further submitted that even though the land in question was outside the specified area of 8 KMs of Rajendranagar Municipality, it is within specified area of 8 KMs of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, and hence, notwithstanding the fact the land in question falls within the Revenue jurisdiction of Rajendranagar Mandal and more than 8 KMs away from the Rajendranagar Municipal limits, it is an urban land since it falls within 8 KMs of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits, and as such, it is a capital asset giving rise to capital gains on its sale. He submitted that if the property is within the specified area of 8 KMs of any municipality, not necessarily within the jurisdiction of the Revenue authority, the property assumes the character of urban land. He placed reliance on the unreported decision dated 1.3.2011 of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Smt. Anjana Sehgal (Income-tax Appeal No.276 of 2004), duly filing a copy thereof before us, in support of this proposition. He also submitted that mere payment of advances for purchase of lands, would not entitle the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Sehgal (supra) that the expression "from the local limits of any municipality" used in section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income-tax Act denotes "any municipality or municipality of the District in which the land is situated". Further, capital gains arising from the transfer of agricultural land situated in municipal or other urban areas or notified adjoining areas will be liable to income-tax. In this view of the matter, and considering the facts and the circumstances of the present case, in our considered view, the lower authorities are justified in determining the land in question, as capital asset liable for income-tax. With regard to determination of cost of acquisition of the land disposed of, we are of the opinion that considering the proximity of the land to the city, it is reasonable to fix the value of as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.30,000 per acre, instead of Rs.10,000 determined by the Assessing Officer, as against Rs.1,40,000 claimed by the assessee. One of the reasons for which the claim of the assessee for relief under S.54B was rejected by the assessing officer was that what was paid by the assessee was only an advance for purchase, and unless it is actual purchase of land, asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
