SANGITA JAMDAR,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-10, PUNE

ITA 925/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 September 2026AY 2011-20128 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the core issue was whether the agricultural land was a capital asset, hinging on its distance from municipal limits and the village population. The assessee argued that the distance should be calculated as of 06 January 1994, citing Notification No. 9447, and that the village population was below 10,000. The AO and CIT(A) had relied on distances calculated as of later dates (2018) and used routes/bridges not existing in 1994. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's reliance on the 06 January 1994 notification and had not made specific findings on it. Observing that principles of natural justice were not fully adhered to, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to substantiate their claim. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to examine and verify the assessee's claim, calculate the distance as per the specified notification, and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sangita Jamdar, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 as the assessee had sold immovable property in FY 2010-11 without filing a return. The assessee filed a return on 26.10.2018, disclosing a total income of Rs. 2,65,220/-. The AO determined the sale of agricultural land at Nigoje Village, Khed, valued at Rs. 1,10,00,000/-, as a capital asset, computing Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 1,08,66,688/- and total income of Rs. 1,11,31,908/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action. The dispute centers on whether the agricultural land qualifies as a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on its distance from municipal limits and the population of the village.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the agricultural land sold by the assessee is a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the distance from municipal limits as on 06 January 1994, as argued by the assessee, or as on the date of sale (FY 2010-11) or later, as relied upon by the revenue authorities? 2. Whether the AO erred in relying on documents and evidence, such as Google Maps and reports from PWD and PMRDA, which calculated distances from municipal limits as on dates subsequent to 06 January 1994, and without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard on such evidence? 3. Whether the agricultural land qualifies as a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, given that the population of Nighoje village was less than 10,000 as per the 2011 census, and the land is situated beyond 8 km from municipal limits as on 06 January 1994? Assessee's Contentions: - The distance for determining capital asset status should be calculated as on 06 January 1994, the date of Notification No. 9447 (Urbanization of Areas). - Reliance on documents calculating distance as of 29 November 2018 or using Google Maps for 2018 is erroneous. - The causeway over the Indrayani River and the bridge from Talawade to Chakan MIDC were not in existence as on 06 January 1994, and the PWD's distance calculation using these is invalid. - The AO relied on evidence not provided during assessment proceedings. - The population of Nighoje village was less than 10,000, satisfying one condition of Section 2(14)(iii)(a), and the land is beyond 8 km from municipal limits as per a Gram Panchayat certificate. - Relied on the Bombay High Court decision in PCIT v. Anthony John Pereira (2020). Revenue's Contentions: - The Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A) and the submissions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 14.07.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Ground No 1: Distance of eight kilometers for the purpose of determining capital asset to be calculated as on 06 January 1994 ie., the date when the Notification No 9447 dated 06 January 1994 (Urbanization of Areas) was issued.

1.

1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned revenue authorities erred in placing

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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 →