9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e municipal limit. Hence, it was not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act. Thus addition towards LTCG is deleted and the grounds are allowed. Application of the provisions of section 50C - Since, we have held that the subject land was not a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act, application of the provisions of section 50C are not applicable. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the addition. Addition being cash deposited in the bank account during financial year - HELD THAT:- As found by AO that assessee had withdrawn cash from bank account on regular interval. In the return filed u/s 148 of the Act, she has shown income of Rs. 1,62,947/- and agricultural income of Rs. 90,000/-. CIT(A) has repeated the finding of AO and upheld the addition. No supporting evidence was filed by the assessee before us to substantiate availability of cash of Rs. 12,01,000/- as on 01.04.2011. The cash book submitted by the lower authorities was only a feeble attempt to justify deposit of cash by the assessee. Assessee has withdrawn various amounts from her bank account. She has also shown agricultural income of Rs. 90,000/- during the year. Considering the totalit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provision of section 50C to compute the capital gain on sale of agriculture land which is not capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii). 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the cash deposit in her bank accounts were made out of agriculture income without appreciating the document supporting the sale of agriculture produce from the agriculture land of appellant held by her since the year 1985. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 9. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om transfer of such land was chargeable to tax under the head capital gains. He adopted rate of Rs. 4/- per square metres as on 01.04.1981 and computed long-term capital gain (LTCG) at Rs. 21,64,895/-. The AO also added Rs. 57,58,180/- u/s 50C of the Act being the difference between fair market value (FMV) for levying stamp duty and the actual sale consideration. In absence of details, the AO also added Rs. 12,89,500/- being the cash deposit in the bank account during the year u/s 68 of the Act. In the result, total income was determined at Rs. 93,75,520/- against returned income of Rs. 1,62,947/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Upon receiving the notices u/s 250 of the Act, the appellant submitted additional evidences, which were sent to AO for remand report. The AO submitted the remand report, which was sent to the appellant for comments. The appellant submitted rejoinder on 01.01.2024. The CIT(A) has considered the observation of the AO, appellant's submission and given the decisions at paras 4, 5 and 6 of the appellate order. Regarding the issue of long-term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 21,64,895/-, assessee had submitted a certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted a paper book, which includes distance certificate from the Dy. EE, Surat (R & B), Sub-Division No.4, Surat (English Translation) and Circular No.17 of 2015 (F. No.279/MISC./140/2015-ITJ), dated 06.10.2015 (supra). The ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Nitish Rameshchandra Chordia, (2015) 57 Taxmann.com 394 (Bombay HC), (ii) CIT vs. Vijay Singh Kadam, ITA No.714/2015 (Delhi HC), (iii) DCIT vs. Manubhai Rajabhai Dhameliya, ITA No.258 & 259/SRT/2018 (ITAT - Surat) and Printisha Pravinbhai Patel & Ors. vs. ITO, ITA Nos.477 to 486/SRT/2019 (ITAT - Surat) and submitted that the impugned land was not a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act. It is clear from the certificate issued by the Dy. EE, Surat (R & D) that the distance was 8.5 kilometres. He further submitted that the CBDT in its Circular No.17/2015 (supra) has clearly directed that for the period prior up to AY.2014-15, the distance between municipal limit and agricultural land is to be measured having regard to the shortest road distance. As the subject AY is 2012- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. 2. The matter has been examined in light of judicial decisions on the subject. The Nagpur Bench of the Hon. Bombay High Court Vide order dated 30.03.2015 in ITA. 151 of 2013 in the case of Smt. Maltibai R. Kadu has held that the amendment prescribing distance to be measured aerially, applies prospectively i.e., in relation to assessment year 2014-15 and subsequent assessment year. For the period prior to assessment year 2014-15, the High Court held that the distance between the municipal limit and the agricultural land is to be measured having regard to the shortest road distance. The said decision of the High Court has been accepted and the aforesaid disputed issue has not been further contested. 3. Being a settled issue, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground by the officers of the Department and appeals already filed, if any, on this issue before various Courts/Tribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon. This may be brought to the notice of all concerned. [F. No.279/Misc./140/2015-ITJ]" 7.1 If the facts of the present appeal are considered in the light of the CBDT Circular (supra), it is clear that the distance between the municipal limit and the agricultu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
