Sh.Gurdeep Singh, Patiala v. Income Tax Officer, Nabha

ITA 694/CHANDI/2017 | 2013-2014
Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 69421514 RSA 2017
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 694/CHANDI/2017
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant Sh.Gurdeep Singh, Patiala
Respondent Income Tax Officer, Nabha
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted Not Allotted
Tribunal Order Date 10-11-2017
Assessment Year 2013-2014
Appeal Filed On 20-04-2017
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 694/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SH. GURDEEP SINGH VS. THE ITO S/O LATE SHRI GUIRDARSHAN SINGH NABHA PATIALA PAN NO. ABMPS77403A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. N.K. SHAHI RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 01.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.11.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] PATIALA DATED 20.3.2017. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOW ING GROUND:- THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN A RURAL AREA AND THAT ALSO APPROXIMATEL Y 4 KMS AWAY FROM THE OUTER LIMITS OF A MUNICIPALITY AS A 2 CAPITAL ASSET IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(14) (III) OF TH E INCOME- TAX ACT 1961. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT O N 16.7.2012 THE ASSESSEE SOLD HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CASH CONS IDERATION OF RS. 87 50 000/- SITUATED IN VALLAGE WAZIDPUR THENASAR C ITY DISTRICT KURUKSHETRA IN HARYANA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ENQUIRIES FROM THE REGISTRAR / TEHSILDAR OF THANESAR AS TO WHETHER THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AGRICULTURAL OR URBAN LAND IN NATURE. THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY INFORMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE LAND IN QUE STION WAS : (I) OUT OF MUNICIPAL LIMIT (II) LAND IS RURAL AND ; (III) DISTANCE FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT IS APPROXIMATELY FROM 4 KM THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE LAND SOLD BY TH E ASSESSEE WAS SITUATED WITHIN THE 4 KM OF THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THANESAR CITY WHEREAS AS PER THE NOTIFICATION THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED BE YOND 5 KMS WERE LIABLE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS C HARGEABLE TO TAX SO IT WAS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND RATHER URBAN LAND IN N ATURE. ACCORDINGLY HE CHARGED THE SALE OF LAND TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAX AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 77 95 760/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEA L BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) PATIALA WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE THU S HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE INVITING OUR A TTENTION TO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14) (III) (A) & (B ) OF THE ACT HAS STATED 3 THAT THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS A RURAL LAND AND HENCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET CHARGEABL E TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDIN ATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ARIJIT MITRA REPO RTED IN [2011] 16 TAXMAN.COM 66 (KOLKATA.). 6. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE FIN DINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE RE LEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14)(III)(A) &(B) OF THE ACT AS APPLICABL E FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE AS UNDER:- CAPITAL ASSET' MEANS (A) PROPERTY OF ANY KIND HELD BY AN ASSESSEE WHETHER OR NOT CONNECTED WITH HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION; (B) . BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE - (III) AGRICULTURAL LAND IN INDIA NOT BEING LAND SITUATE (A) IN ANY AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE TOW N AREA COMMITTEE TOWN COMMITTEE OR BY ANY OTHER NAME) OR A CANTONMENT BOARD AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF NOT LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND A CCORDING TO THE LAST PRECEDING CENSUS OF WHICH THE RELEVANT FIG URES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; OR [(B) IN ANY AREA WITHIN SUCH DISTANCE NOT BEING MORE THAN EIGHT KILOMETERS FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN ITE M (A) AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY HAVING REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF AND SCOPE OF URBANIZATION OF THAT A REA AND OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATION SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF BY NOTIFICATION IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE. 4 8. THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS REVEAL THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT SUCH A DISTANCE AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNM ENT MAY PRESCRIBE BY NOTIFICATION HAVING REGARD TO THE EXTENT AND SCOP E OF URBANIZATION OF THAT AREA AND OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATION SPECIFY IN T HIS BEHALF. ADMITTEDLY AS PER NOTIFICATION THE SPECIFIED DISTANCE IS 5 KM S AND ABOVE SO FAR AS THE DISTANCE OF LAND OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CONCERNED MUNICIPAL LIMIT IS CONCERNED. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT EA CH AND EVERY RURAL LAND IS EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE OF DEFINITION OF THE CAP ITAL ASSETS U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT IS NOT TENABLE. THE RELIANCE OF THE LD. CO UNSEL ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ARIJIT MITRA IS ALSO MISPLAC ED. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHILE DIS MISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.11.2017 SD/- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 10 TH NOV. 2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR