ROSHAN LAL,HISAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HISAR, HISAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that there was no concrete material/evidence to establish the distance of the land from the municipal limits of Hisar city. Therefore, the substantive ground was restored to the Assessing Authority to decide afresh.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal arose from an order confirming an addition of long-term capital gains on the sale of land. The core issue was whether the land qualified as a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on its distance from the municipal limits.
What were the issues?
Whether the land sold by the assessee was a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering its distance from municipal limits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
2010-11 arises against CIT(A), Mysore’s order dated 01.07.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1078083241(1), in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s.
147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to the first and foremost issue between the parties i.e. correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action making long term capital gains addition of Rs. 29,73,979/-, there is hardly in dispute that the assessee was owner and in possession of some land(s) situated in the revenue estate of village Dhansu, tehsil made clear that there is again no quarrel between the parties regarding either the cost of its acquisition or that of improvement as the case may be.
Learned counsel submits in this backdrop that both the lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee’s land in question as a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act despite the fact that the same was situated very well beyond the statutory distance of 8 kms. from the nearest municipal limits. He also refers to various documents to buttress the point that the impugned land has already been held as beyond a distance of 8 kms. by the tehsildar and other authorities as well. The Revenue on the other hand draws strong support from both the lower authorities’ action making the impugned long term capital gain addition in the assessee’s hands.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement submissions. The tribunal hereby notices that there is no concrete material/evidence in this case recording that the Assessing Officer had got the distance between the assessee’s land and the municipal limits of Hisar city, measured as per law as on the date of purchase/sale deed dated 15.03.2010 or that going by the CBDT’s circular)s) issued from time to time, as the case may be. It is thus deemed appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant first and foremost law in very terms.
Learned counsel at this stage submits that the total sale/purchase consideration in the hands of the purchaser herein Smt. Ram Bai has already been taken at Rs. 16,00,000/- in pursuance to the tribunal’s remand order. It is thus deemed appropriate to direct the learned assessing authority to consider the same as per law after examining all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. All other issues between the parties at this stage are kept open at this stage. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal ITA 5211/Del/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 01.10.2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026