SHRI HUKAM CHAND S/O SHRI BUDHA,REWARI vs. ITO, REWARI

That the CIT(A) has blindly confirmed the Assessment Order. That the appellant hereby raises the following grounds of appeal from the said order as follows: a. That the Dahruhera situated in District Rewari is not covered by any entry mentioned' in Government of India Gazette dt 6th Jan 1994. b. That the AO and CIT(A) has committed a grave mistake by holding that Agricultural Land sold by the appellant is a capital asset under the Income tax Act. That Village Maheshwari (Rewari) has not population exceeding Ten thousands during last census Year: 1991, 2001.That Village Maheshwari is outside of Municipal Limit of Dharuhera (Rewari). c. That the AO and CIT(A) has not considered the fact that neither Municipal Committee nor Municipal Limit of Dahruhera (Rewari) existed on the date of Gazette notification on 6th Jan 1994. That therefore it is not possible to measure of distance of agricultural land on date of the Gazette notification from definite limit. That the lower Authorities has ignore the 2

The brief facts of the case are that as per AIR information for the financial year 2006-07 received in this office, M/s. Ramotar, Parkash, Hukam, Kalu Ram S/o Sh. Budha, HUF has sold a immovable property valued at Rs.8,52,50,000/- (1,10,00,000+7,42,50,000) on 14.02.2007 at Maheshwari, Dharuhera, Distt. Rewari. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3)/148 in the case of M/s. Ramotar, Parkash, Hukam, Kalu Ram S/o Sh. Budha, HUF, the assessee has submitted an affidavit stating therein that the land was sold by him in individual capacity and not as a HUF. Assessee's share in the said sale consideration comes to Rs.1,16,18,750/-. The query letter in this regard issued and the assessee was asked to furnish the copy of return of income, PAN, calculation of capital gain on said land. The assessee failed to furnish any reply. The land in question is situated within 5 K.M. from Municipal limit of Dharuhera Municipality. Thus, the land sold by the assessee covered in the definition of Capital Asset in view of the Notification issued by the CBDT on 06.01.1994. F.No.164/03/87/1TAI dated 06.01.1994 and was liable to tax under the head Long term capital gain.

It was argued by learned counsel for the assessee who pointed out the notification dated 28th July, 2008 of State Election Commission Haryana and relevant part is reproduced hereinbelow: “(TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE HARYANA STATE (EXTRA ORDINARY) GAZETTER DAED 28.07.2008 STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, HARYANA S.C.O 16-17, SECTOR-20D, CHANDIGARH NOTIFICATION No.SEC/IME/2008/6760-Whereas the State Government (Urban Local Bodies Department) vide its notifications No.18/7/2007-3C1, dated 10.07.2007 and 18/2/2007-3C1, dated 20.07.2007 has declared the local area of Municipal 3

It was argued that land is situated at village-Maheshwari, Dharuhera, Dist-Rewari where there was no municipality upto the date of notification mentioned hereinabove, and therefore, the said amount is not a capital asset and not liable for the capital gain. Learned CIT(A) has not taken into consideration the said notification and has decided the appeal only on the basis of the remand report where the AO also did not take into consideration the said notification.

I am of the view that without taking into consideration the said notification which is quite relevant and the said notification goes deep into root of the matter, the decision of the learned CIT(A) is not a judicious decision, and therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter is set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) who will decide the appeal de novo after taking into consideration the said notification mention hereinabove after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall co-operate in the first appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A).

In the result, the grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this day 24th April, 2017 (B.P. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24/04/2017