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

ITA 925/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 September 2026AY 2011-20128 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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 and had not filed a return. The assessee filed a return disclosing Rs. 2,65,220. The AO determined that the agricultural land sold at Nigoje Village for Rs. 1,10,00,000 was a capital asset, calculating long-term capital gains of Rs. 1,08,66,688 and assessing total income at Rs. 1,11,31,908. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action. The dispute centers on whether the 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 did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the core issue was whether the agricultural land sold by the assessee was a capital asset. The assessee argued that the distance from municipal limits should be calculated as of January 6, 1994, as per Notification No. 9447, and that the village population was below 10,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) relied on later-dated information for distance calculation, including Google Maps and reports from PMRDA and Public Works Sub Division, Khed, which showed distances less than 8 km. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's reliance on the January 6, 1994 notification and that there were no specific findings on it. In the interest of natural justice and to allow the assessee to substantiate their claim, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO. The AO is directed to examine and verify the assessee's claim, calculate the distance as per the said notification, and adjudicate afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

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 January 6, 1994, and the population of the village. Assessee's Contention: The distance from municipal limits should be calculated as of January 6, 1994, the date of Notification No. 9447 (Urbanization of Areas), not November 29, 2018, or the sale year (FY 2010-11). The AO erred in relying on Google Maps and PWD/PMDA reports which used later dates. The causeway and bridge used for distance calculation were not in existence on January 6, 1994. Furthermore, the village population was less than 10,000, satisfying both conditions in Section 2(14)(iii)(a), as held in *PCIT v. Anthony John Pereira*. The land is agricultural and cannot be used for other purposes. Revenue's Contention: The revenue authorities relied on the distance calculations provided by PMRDA and the Public Works Sub Division, Khed, which indicated distances less than 8 kilometers from the PCMC limits, treating the land as a capital asset. The Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A) and submissions.

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 1,116 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(14) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →