9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . And more so, once AO was confronted with the said certificate and remand report was called for. Accordingly, it is held that assessee s land cannot be treated as a capital asset in terms of section 2(14), because it was an agricultural land and was more than 8 KMs away from the local limit of the municipality and population was also less. Hence the chargeability of capital gain on sale of such agricultural land does not arise. The addition thus made is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.:-309/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2019 - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Vishal Chandra Gupta, CA For the Department : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal asset in terms of section 2(14). AO then issued notice to the Tehsildar of Chindwara, vide letter dated 1.2.2016, requiring him to convey the distance of the agriculture land from the municipality of Chindwara. In response, Tehsildar, vide letter dated 11.3.2016 informed the AO that the distance of property sold from the local limit of Chhindwara was approximately of 2 Km and population of Chindwara as per census 2011 was 20,90,922. As per the AO, the assessee s case was falls under the provision of section 2(14)(iii)(b). AO further observed that Khasra and Khatauni reveals that no agricultural activity was carried out by the assessee; and the land presently stands in the name of M/s. Adani Pench Power Limited. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the AO. It was further submitted that earlier Chindwara was a Municipal Council and was notified as Municipal Corporation only in the year 2014, vide Gazzette Notification No. 408 dated 5th September, 2014; and therefore, subsequent notification cannot be the basis for drawing adverse inference. At the time of sale not only the land was agricultural land but was situated at a distance of about 9.5 KMs from the limits of nearest Municipality, i.e Chhindwara Municipal Council . In support, a certificate dated 6.5.2016 from the Land Revenue Office was also filed. The assessee s detailed submission in this regard has been noted and incorporated in the impugned appellate order in detail. The assessee had also filed application for additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 53,65,000/- in the financial year 2012-13, relevant to assessment year 2013-14. However, in the sale deed, the value of agricultural land for the purpose of stamp duty was determined at ₹ 78,00,000/-. The core issue is, whether the said land falls within the ambit of capital asset as defined in section 2(14)(iii)(b). It transpires from the record that, in order to ascertain whether the land was sold by the assessee was agricultural land or not; and whether it falls within one of the conditions given in section 2(14)(iii)(b), AO had sought to make an inquiry from Tehsildar. In response, Tehsildar had initially written a letter to the AO vide letter dated 1.2.2016 stating that: - a) the said land was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter dated 28th August, 2014. Thus, it appears that at the time of sale, the agricultural land was more that 8 kms from the then Municipal Council and population of the village was less than 3000. It was in the year 2014 that area of municipality was enlarged. Hence there seems to be no contradiction. The assessee during the course of the first appellate proceedings, further corroborated this fact in the form of Distance Certificate from the Land Revenue authorities on the ground that same could not obtained due to paucity of time. Hence same was filed as an additional evidence. The copy of said certificate is appearing at page 25 of the paper book, which certifies that the distance of the said land was 9.5 Km s away from N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
