Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order pertaining to assessment year 2013-14, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The lower authorities had determined long-term capital gains on the transfer of agricultural lands.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the lands in question were previously treated by the Assessing Officer, following revision directions from the PCIT, as not being a "capital" asset under section 2(14) of the Act. This factual position remained unrebutted by the Revenue.
Key Issues
Whether the agricultural lands sold qualify as a "capital" asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, so as to attract capital gains addition.
Sections Cited
143(3), 2(14)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060787349(1), dated 12.02.02024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We notice at the outset during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessments and lower appellate findings have held the assessee as having derived long- term capital gains amounting to Rs.2,66,89,945/- on transfer of his agricultural lands situated in the revenue estate of village Bhandwari, Tehsil- Sohna, Distt. Gurgaon.
That being the case, we note from a perusal of the case records that the first and foremost issue which arises for our apt adjudication is as to whether the assessee lands sold/transferred on 18.10.2012 form a “capital” asset under section 2(14) of the Act or not so as to attract capital gain addition in issue.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel invites our attention to paper-book pages 38 to 50 indicating the Assessing Officer to have framed his assessment in his brother Sh. Gundeep Singh Anand’s case on 11.12.2018; in furtherance to the PCIT’s section 263 revision directions wherein he had treated the revenue estate of the very village as not covered u/s 2(14) of the Act. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We thus conclude in this factual backdrop that the assessee’s lands sold in Bhandwari, Tehsil- Sohna, Distt. Gurgaon do not 2 | P a g e form a capital asset going by the Assessing Officer’s above said assessment itself so as to attract the impugn long-term capital gains addition. Deleted accordingly.