9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icultural land. This being so, we see no reason to take a different view in the case of assessee before us. Respectfully following the same, we would hold that the land was an agricultural land and the resultant gains were exempt from tax. All the other grounds have been rendered infructuous. The impugned additions stand deleted. - ITA No. 2347/Chny/2019 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2022 - HON BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH , VICE PRESIDENT AND HON BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL , AM Appellant by : Shri G. Baskar ( Advocate ) - Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri G. Johnson ( Addl. CIT ) Ld. DR ORDER Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ( Accountant Member ) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 arises out of the order of lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than 6 Kilometres and as such is not a capital asset within the meaning of Sec.2(14) of the Income-Tax Act. 3.5 The CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal on irrelevant factors such as the surrounding area of the lands and the purpose of sale. 4.1 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in invoking the provisions of Sec. 50C of the IT Act. 4.2 The CIT(A) failed to note that the AO without affording any opportunity to the Appellant blindly adopted the guidelines value as the gross consideration and thus the same is bad in law. 5. Any other Ground/s that may be adduced at the time of hearing. As evident, the sole subject matter of appeal is computation of capital gain on certain land sold by the assessee during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by residential flats with close proximity to various established industries which would show that the land was not agricultural land. The first appellate order in case of T. Bhavani Devi was held to be not similar and distinguishable. Finally, the additions were confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. As rightly pointed out by Ld. AR, the issue of nature of land has already been dealt with by Tribunal in the case of co-owner titled as ITO V/s Late T.Bhavani Devi (ITA No.1214/Chny/2019 dated 25.02.2022). The findings of the bench were as under: - 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the JCIT vide his directions dated 30.12.2017 has note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of a letter from Village Administrative Officer (VAO) of Varadarajapuram village, dated 22/11/2017 in which the VAO has stated that the land in question is situated within 7 kms from outer limits of Tambaram municipality. On the other hand, the assessing officer vide notice u/s 133(6) dated 22/11/2017 sought certain details of the land from the Tahsildar, Sriperumbudhur Taluk. In response to the above notice, the Tahsildar vide letter dated 22/11/17 made submissions. In the said submission, the Tahsildar has stated that the land in question is situated within 4 Km approximately from the outer limits of Tambaram Municipality. 7.1 We have also gone through the web documents filed by assessee in her paper-book at pages 1 to 3 and part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
