ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. KRUPESH JAYANTILAL PATEL, AHMEDABAD
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, contending that the land sold by the assessee should be considered a capital asset and not agricultural land under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The land in question was located in village Adalaj, Gandhinagar district, and was reportedly situated outside the 5 KM radius of the Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, relying on previous coordinate bench orders for the same transaction involving joint-owners, which had held the land to be agricultural land and not a capital asset under Section 2(14). The Tribunal affirmed that there was no merit in interfering with the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee's Cross Objections regarding the validity of the assessment reopening were dismissed as not pressed.
Key Issues
Whether the land sold by the assessee qualifies as agricultural land not being a capital asset, or if it falls within the definition of a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 2(14), Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 2(14)(iii)(a), Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal by the Revenue and the corresponding Cross Objection by the assessee have been directed against the order of the Learned & CNo.66/Ahd/2025 (By Assessee) Asst. Year : 2013-14
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], dated 21/02/2025, passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The short issue involved in the appeal of the Revenue is as to whether the land sold by the assessee falls in the definition of agricultural land being not capital assets as defined u/s.2(14) of the Act.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to two separate orders of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal. The first order is passed in ITA No.1794/Ahd/2017 in the case of ITO vs. Shri Kaushalkumar Gangaram Patel, dated 17/06/2019, and the second order is passed in ITA No.899/Ahd/2025 in the case of ACIT vs. Rakeshkumar Jayantilal Patel, dated 11/08/2025, wherein, in respect of the same transaction of sale in the case of the joint-owners, the identical issue has been deliberated upon by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal and has finally been decided in favour of the assessee holding that the land in question sold by the assessee along with joint-owners was an agricultural land not falling in the definition of capital assets as definition u/s.2(14) of the Act. The relevant part of the order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Shri Kaushalkumar(supra) is reproduced as under:
“7. We have gone through the impugned order and heard both the parties. Undisputedly land is situated at village Adalaj Revenue district Gandhinagar and land in question is 5 KM outside the radious of Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation and we draw support from the letter issued by the Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority Junior Town Planning Officer who has specifically mentioned that land in question is situated outside 5Km radious & CNo.66/Ahd/2025 (By Assessee) Asst. Year : 2013-14
3 of Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation vide letter No. GUDA/Tech/692/2015 letter dated 08.02.2016. 8. We have also gone through the Notification No. 9447 dated 06.01.1994 issued by the Govt. of Gujarat wherein it is mentioned that Adalaj (CT) (Guj, population: 9776, Class-V) and municipal limit is area up to a distance of 4 KM from the Municipal limits in all direction whereas land in question is outside the 5 KM radious of Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation and as per Section 2(14)(iii)(a) capital asset means property of any kind hold by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession and agricultural land in Indian, not being land situate (a) in any area which comprised within the juri iction of a municipality (whether known as municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population not less than 10,000. 9. In this case, agricultural land in question is situated beyond 5Km radious of Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation and in our considered opinion, same is agricultural land which is not a capital asset as per Income Tax Act. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Id. CIT(A). Thus, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue.”
In view of this, there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Assessee’s CO No.66/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No.921/Ahd/2024 for AY 2013-14)
In his Cross Objections, the assessee has raised the issue of validity of the reopening of the assessment.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated at bar that as per the instruction of his client, he does not want to press the Cross Objections and, hence, the Cross Objections are dismissed as not pressed. & CNo.66/Ahd/2025 (By Assessee) Asst. Year : 2013-14
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30/01/2026. (Annapurna Gupta ) Judicial Member
अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 30/01/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS आदेश की !ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ$ / The Appellant 2. !%थ$ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु& / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु& अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad 5. िवभागीय !ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत !ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.
