9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 2(14)(iii)(b) which got amended w.e.f. 01/04/2014 will not be applicable to A.Y. 2008-09 qua the case of the Assessee, then in principle the provisions prior to shall be applicable, whereby in 1994 the Central Government has notified the areas within the limits of Visakhapatnam municipality and as per that notification, the Assessee s land in question is undoubtedly falls beyond 8 km. from municipal limits and thereafter no notification has been issued by the Central Government. Meaning thereby, the notification of 1994 still construed as in existence. Even otherwise, the coordinate bench of the tribunal in the case of Jasti Vayunandana Rao [ 2010 (10) TMI 1082 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM ] dealt with the exactly similar issue related to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ma Krishna, Sr.DR ORDER PER BENCH This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 11/02/2020 impugned herein passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 [for short, ld. Commissioner ], Visakhapatnam u/sec. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) for the A.Y. 2008-09. 2. In this case, the Assessee along with six other persons has sold 5.88 acres of land situated at Kapuluppada village, Visakhapatnam on dated 16/04/2007 through registered sale-cum-GPA document No. 3921/2007 in which the Assessee s share was to the extent of ₹ 50.00 lakhs in lieu of 0.50 acres of the total land. The purchase value of the land sold by the Assessee was ₹ 1,16,130/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication dated 06/01/1994 from which it is clear that the land sold was beyond 8 km. of local limits of Visakhapatnam. The Assessee also filed a certificate issued by the Executive Engineer (R B), dated 04/12/2008 in Letter No.638/D2/Distance/08 (page No.18 of the paper book filed by the Assessee), where it is certified that distance from old municipality Visakhapatnam to Kapuluppada village is 15.96 kms, and therefore, GVMC notification has no application. The Assessee also relied on the decision of the coordinate bench of the tribunal at Visakhapatnam in the case of DCIT Vs. Jasti Vayunandana Rao (ITA No.122/ViZ/2010, dated 29/10/2010) wherein the land situated in the same village was exempted from the capital gain tax, being considered a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion also filed a certificate issued by the Executive Engineer (R B) vide Letter No.638/D2/Distance/08 to the effect that the distance from old municipality Visakhapatnam to Kapuluppada village is 15.96 km. The Ld. Commissioner did not express any doubt about the said certificate and though mentioned in its order, however, did not rely upon the same. The conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner with regard to applicability of section 2(14)(iii)(b) is that the said section got amended w.e.f. 01/04/2014 where the distance is measured aerially, therefore, the amended provision is not applicable to A.Y. 2008-09. If we consider the conclusion of the ld. Commissioner to the effect that provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(b) which got amended w.e.f. 01/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation land falls within 8 km. from the local limits of any municipality would not declare to be an agricultural land. The concluding part of the order is reproduced herein below:- 7. Having heard the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of the record, we find that undisputedly the impugned land was initially situated beyond the 8 kms. from the municipality limit of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. But later on, on incorporation of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, it falls within the 8 kms. from the municipal limit. But no notification as required u/s 2(14)(iii)(b) of the I.T. Act was issued in the Official Gazette by the Central Government. This issue was examined by us in the case of Smt. C. Girija Vs. ACIT (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be an agricultural land. But in the instant case, the impugned land is admittedly situates within area of a local limit of the GVMC for which no notification as specified in clause (b) is required to be issued by the central government. We have also examined the contention of the assessees that the GVMC was notified by the local laws and local laws cannot supersede the central laws. But we do not find any force in this argument because the municipality or the cantonment board are subject to local laws and within a state subject and are created by a notification by the state government. Central government has no jurisdiction to create a municipality, cantonment board in any state of the country. Central government is concerned with the centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
