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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1653/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 June 2020AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not considered the population criteria for defining a capital asset. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's land was situated in Mitmita Village. The Assessing Officer did not consider the population of the village in relation to the definition of 'capital asset' under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the village population was less than ten thousand.

What were the issues?

Whether the land qualifies as a 'capital asset' based on the population criteria of the village where it is situated, as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal
For Respondent: Shri S.P Walimbe

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.

3.

The CIT(Appeals)-1, Aurangabad.

More judgments on Section 2(14)

All 1,130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(14) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →