COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. KHEACHERU SINGH
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the Revenue's appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning Assessment Year 2006-07. The primary issue revolved around the method of calculating the distance of agricultural land from a municipality to determine its status as a capital asset. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the amendment to Section 2(14)(iii) by the Finance Act, 2013, which introduced aerial measurement for distance, is prospective and not applicable to the Assessment Year 2006-07. Citing Circular No. 17/2015 of the CBDT, the counsel stated they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. Based on this submission, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was rendered on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised.
What were the facts?
The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2006-07. The core of the dispute involved the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,25,78,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of short-term capital gain. The AO had treated certain lands as capital assets liable for capital gains tax. The assessee was Khacheru Singh (since deceased) through his Legal Representatives. The procedural history involves the AO's addition, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleting it, and the ITAT upholding the CIT(A)'s order, leading to the Revenue's appeal to the High Court.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 1,25,78,000 addition on account of short-term capital gain, considering the land was situated within eight kilometers of a municipality (7275 meters) and fell within the Gurgaon Manesar Urban Complex, Sector-83, an urban area, thus not exempt under Section 2(14) and Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and liable for capital gains tax under Section 45. 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion by relying on judgments from the Pune Tribunal in Manglam Inorganics (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT and the Mumbai Tribunal in Laukik Developers vs. DCIT (2008) 303 ITR 356 (Mumbai), despite the facts in those cases being different from the present case. 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in upholding the CIT(A)'s finding that the road distance method is the correct yardstick for measuring agricultural land distance from municipality limits, instead of the straight-line (crow fly) method. 4. Whether the ITAT was correct in upholding the CIT(A)'s finding that the AO failed to confront the assessee with the evidence of the District Town Planner, Gurgaon, making it unusable against the assessee as it was gathered ex-parte. Assessee's contentions were not explicitly recorded in the provided text. The Revenue argued that the amendment to Section 2(14)(iii) by the Finance Act, 2013, prescribing aerial measurement, applies prospectively from AY 2014-15, and thus is not applicable to AY 2006-07. The Revenue relied on Circular No. 17/2015 dated October 06, 2015, for instructions to withdraw the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
-1- ----- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: December 04, 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant versus Khacheru Singh (since deceased) through his LRs ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ***** Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue. ****** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
(Oral)
The appellant-Revenue has filed the instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 30.11.2009 (Annexure A-III) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi in ITA No.2953/Del/2009, for the assessment year 2006-07, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,25,78,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of short term capital gain even though the lands in question was situated within eight kilometers from the municipality (i.e. 7275 meters) and also the land in question falls in the Gurgaon Manesar Urban Complex in Sector-83, which is an urban Sonia Kinra 2018.01.09 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- ----- area as such was a capital asset not exempt within the meaning of Section 2(14) and Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, and hence was liable for capital gain tax u/s 45? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,25,78,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of short tem capital gain by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of Manglam Inorganics (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT and of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Laukik Developers V/s DCIT (2008) 303 ITR 356 (Mumbai) disregarding the fact that facts in the cited cases were different from the facts of the present case? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that the road distance method is the correct yardstick for the measurement of agricultural lands from the concerned Municipality limits instead of crow fly i.e. straight line method which is the most scientific, logical and in accordance with the spirit of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (iv) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer had failed in confronting the evidence of the District Town Planner, Gurgaon with the assessee as such it cannot be used against the assessee as it was gathered at his back are perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record as for the said purposes case was fixed for 26.08.2008 and 12.09.2008 and 15.09.2008 and Sh. K.C. Gupta, assessee's Counsel attended and confronted with the letter of District Town Planner, Gurgaon?”
At the outset, learned Sr. Standing counsel for the Sonia Kinra 2018.01.09 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- ----- appellant-Revenue submitted that the issue involved in this appeal relates to whether for calculating the distance of 8 kms. from any municipality for an agricultural land to be considered as capital asset, the straight line method has to be applied or road distance method is correct. It was stated that similar issue had been adjudicated by the Nagpur Bench of the Mumbai High Court in ITA No.151 of 2013 titled as The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Nagpur vs. Smt. Maltibai R. Kadu wherein it has been held that the amendment to Section 2(14)(iii) by the Finance Act, 2013 effective from 01.04.2014 prescribing distance to be measured aerially, applies prospectively i.e. in relation to assessment year 2014-15 and subsequent assessment years. According to the learned counsel, the present case relates to assessment year 2006-07 and therefore, the said amendment is not applicable. He pointed out that in the light of Circular No.17/2015, dated October 06, 2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal.
Dismissed as withdrawn. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) December 04, 2017 JUDGE sonia gugnani Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? Yes Sonia Kinra 2018.01.09 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
More judgments on Section 2(14)
- Karan Dilipkumar Patel L/H of Late… vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi…ITA 353/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ishvarbhai Bhagabhai Patel, Surat vs The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), SuratITA 6/SRT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Malini Satish Parekh, Surat vs ITO, Ward 2(3), SuratITA 900/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Lakhmanbhai Maru, Vadodara vs ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Vadodara, Aayakar…ITA 1046/AHD/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026