Smt. Raj Rani, Sangrur v. ACIT, Sangrur

ITA 231/CHANDI/2011 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 23121514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN APGPA5219K
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 231/CHANDI/2011
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Raj Rani, Sangrur
Respondent ACIT, Sangrur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 27-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 27-09-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 07-03-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: CHANDIGARH BENCH B BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA JM AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH AM ITA NO. 231/CHANDIGARH/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 SMT. RAJ RANI V A.C.I.T. SANGRUR W/O L. SHRI BALDEV KRISHAN GARG CLUBROAD SANGRUR PAN: APGPA 5219K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AJAY SHARMA DATE OF HEARING: 27.9.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 .9.2011 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005- 06 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) PA TIALA DATED 31.12.2010 U/S 250 (6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT (IN SHORT THE AC T). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1 THAT THE WORTHY LD. CIT(A) PATIALA HAS ERRED IN CONFORMING THE FINDINGS OF AO WITH REGARD TO THAT WHY HON'BLE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH HAS SEND THE SAME TO T HE AO FOR EXAMINATION AND ADJUDICATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 2 THAT WORTHY LD. CIT(A) PATIALA HAS ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD AT VILLAGE KHERI IS ACA PITAL ASSET AND WHERE AS THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD IS NOT AN CAPIT AL ASSET THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 78 773/- IS UNCALLED FOR. 3 THAT WORTHY LD. CIT(A) PATIALA HAS ERRED INLAW TO UPHOLD THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND IS COMMERCIAL LAND WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE BENCH THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNE D AGRICULTURAL LAND ITA NO. 231/CHANDI/2011 SMT. RAJ RANI V. ACIT 2 DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF CAPITAL ASSET A S CONTEMPLATED U/S 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT. HE CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUG NED VILLAGE IS GOVERNED BY PANCHAYAT AND HENCE IT IS NOT A MUNICIPAL CORPOR ATION. THEREFORE THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT LOGICALLY TENABLE. 4. THE DR ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY CONTENDE D THAT THERE WAS A NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND A S PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THE IMPUGNED LAND SQUARELY FALLS UNDER THE CAPITAL ASSET. THEREFORE THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) ARE VALID. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS ALSO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. IT IS A CLEAR CASE WHERE TH E IMPUGNED ASSET FALLS U/S 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 2(14)(III):- (III) AGRICULTURAL LAND IN INDIA NOT BEING LAND SITUATE (A) IN ANY AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURI SDICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY MUNI CIPAL CORPORATION NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE TOWN AREA COM MITTEE TOWN COMMITTEE OR BY ANY OTHER NAME) OR A CANTONMENT BO ARD AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF NOT LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND ACCO RDING TO THE LAST PRECEDING CENSUS OF WHICH THE RELEVANT FIGURES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR ; OR (B) IN ANY AREA WITHIN SUCH DISTANCE NOT BEING MO RE THAN EIGHT KILOMETERS FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALI TY OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN ITEM (A) AS THE CENTRAL GOVER NMENT MAY HAVING REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF AND SCOPE FOR URBA NIZATION OF THAT AREA AND OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE. 6. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER WITH A VIEW TO APPRECIATING THE SAME:- ITA NO. 231/CHANDI/2011 SMT. RAJ RANI V. ACIT 3 3.1 THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO ON 28.11.2007 AT AN INCOME FOR RS. 24 97 870/-. THE APPELLANT FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THIS OFFICE WHICH WAS DECIDED BY MY LD. PREDECESSOR BY ALLOWING PART RELIEF IN A NO. 120/2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.3.2008. THE APPELL ANT FURTHER RUSHED TO HON'BLE ITAT CHANDIGARH WHO VIDE ITS ORD ER IN ITA NO. 479/CHAND/2008 DATED 28.11.2008 RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO AFTER ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE AO WAS ASKED TO EXAMINE AND ADJUDICATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED BY THE AO TO FILE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE H ON'BLE ITAT BUT INSPITE OF VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES THE SAME WAS NOT D ONE SO ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASE WAS HEARD BEFORE HON'BLE ITAT ALONGWITH THE APPEAL IN CASE OF OTHER CO-OWNER SMT. PAMELA GARG A ND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE SIMILAR. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE ISSUE STATED HERE IS THAT THE APPELLANT OWNS AGRICULTURAL LAND M EASURING 23 KANAL 2 MARLAS AT VILLAGE KHERI AND OUT OF THIS ABOUT 7 K ANALS WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LAND WAS S ITUATED IN VILLAGE KHERI AT A DISTANCE OF ABOUT 2.3 KM FROM S ANGRUR MUNICIPAL LIMITS WHICH IS GOVERNED AND ELECTED BY G RAM PANCHAYAT UNDER THE PUNJAB PANCHAYAT ACT 1994. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT. APPELLANT HERSELF ADMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT DISTA NCE OF THE LAND FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SANGRUR IS ABOUT 2.3 K M. AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER FINDS THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE AS SESSEE IS ONLY 2.3 KMFROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SANGRUR AND AS SUCH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14 )(III)(B) OF THE IT ACT 1961. THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNME NT OF INDIA UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) FOR T HE PURPOSE OF DECLARING ANY LAND AS AN URBAN LAND HAVING REGARD T O THE EXTENT OF AND SCOPE FOR URBANIZATION BECOMES RELEVANT. THE A O BY COMPLYING WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF HON'BLE ITAT ISSUE D NOTICES U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE ITAT REASSESSED THE INCOME O F THE APPELLANT AT RS. 24 24 587/-. DURING THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE WAS FURNISHED IN PAMELA GARGS CASE AND A DETAILED DISC USSION WAS CARRIED OUT DURING APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS. THE HON'B LE ITAT TOOK A DECISION TO SEND BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH EXAMINATI ON AND ADJUDICATION. AT THE TIME OF HEARING IN APPELLANT S CASE A PHOTOCOPY OF FARD JAMABANDI WAS SHOWN BUT THE SAME COULD NOT BE FURNISHED DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE DECISION WAS ON SIMILAR GROUNDS AS PRONOUNCED IN THE APPEAL MATTER OF SMT. PAMELA GARG . HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AT THE TIME OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS A REQUEST WAS MADE BEFORE AO TO PROVIDE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETT ER OF TEHSILDAR SANGRUR ON BASIS OF WHICH THE CASE WAS DECIDED BY J CIT SANGRUR BUT THE SAME WAS NOT SUPPLIED ON THE GROUND THAT TH E CASE WAS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISH ED BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT. THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO IS W ITHOUT PROPERLY GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WEL L THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELL ANT. I AM ITA NO. 231/CHANDI/2011 SMT. RAJ RANI V. ACIT 4 CONSTRAINED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF MY LD. PREDEC ESSOR ON IDENTICAL ISSUE IN A. NO. 200/IT/CIT(A)/PTA/09-10 D ATED 13.4.2010 OF THE OTHER CO-OWNER SMT. PAMELA GARG. 3.4 HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6.1 THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED VILLAG E IS GOVERNED BY A PANCHAYAT AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS MUNICIP ALITY. SUCH CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS MIS-PLACED. THE IMPU GNED AGRICULTURAL LAND IS COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2 (14)(III)(B) OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S 2(14)(III)(A) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE T HE CONCEPT OF PANCHAYAT AND THE POPULATION ARE IRRELEVANT IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE DEFINITION. THE IMPUGNED LAND SQUARELY FALLS WITHIN THE NOTIFICATIO N ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE LEGAL AND F ACTUAL DISCUSSIONS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE THE SAME ARE UPHELD. CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 .9.2011 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNANT MEMBER CHANDIGARH THE 29 .9.2011 SURESH COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ITA NO. 231/CHANDI/2011 SMT. RAJ RANI V. ACIT 5