PRABHA FARMS PVT. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

This corrigendum is being issued in view of the application dated 20th June, 2020 to correct the inadvertent typographical error crept in line 7 of Para 7 of the order in as much as “ten lakhs”, which shall be read as “ten thousand” instead of “ten lakhs”. Now, the Para 7 should be read as follows:

7. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. As per Section 2(14) of the Act which defines ‘capital asset’ and therein, sub-section (iii) provides two criteria to be satisfied in order to qualify as ‘capital asset’ i.e. (I) not being more than 8 kms from local limits of any municipality or cantonment Board referred in item(a) and (II) which has a population of more than ten thousand. The grievance of the assessee is that he is not qualified with regard to the second condition since population of Mitmita Village where the land is situated, is less than ten thousand. This issue was not considered by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore back the issue to the file of Assessing Officer for proper adjudication as per law in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Thus, Ground No.3 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The remaining part of the order shall remain unaltered.

Sd/- Sd/- D. KARUNAKARA RAO PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिनाांक / Dated : 24th June, 2020. SB आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीऱार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2.