INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DADARO GOVINDRAO DHABRE, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 81/NAG/2020Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 December 2023AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the assessee had conclusively established the distance of the land from the municipal limits. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after obtaining a remand report.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold agricultural land. The Assessing Officer treated the sale as a transfer of a capital asset and added the long-term capital gains. The assessee contended the land was outside the municipal limits, thus not a capital asset.

What were the issues?

Whether the agricultural land sold by the assessee constituted a 'capital asset' as defined under the Income Tax Act, considering its distance from municipal limits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 26.12.2023Pronounced: 27.12.2023

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2012- 2013, arise against the CIT(A)-2, Nagpur, Nagpur’s order in Appeal No.CIT(A)-2/10048/2018-19, dated 20.03.2020, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2. The Revenue raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

2 ITA.No.81/NAG./2020 “1. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the impugned addition made by the A.O. on account of long term capital gain.

2.

Any other ground that may be raised during the proceedings.”

3.

Suffice to say, the sole substantive issue that arises for our apt adjudication in the instant appeal is that of correctness of the CIT(A)'s impugned action reversing the assessment findings adding the alleged long term capital gains in assessee’s hands to the tune of Rs.3,48,85,210/-. We make it clear that there is no dispute about the assessee having sold/transferred the relevant capital asset i.e., “parcel of agricultural land” in Bhogwatdarkshetra 1, Patwari Halka no.38A, admeasuring 2.38 Hector Mouza-Vela Hari, Taluka and Dist. Nagpur on 20.12.2011. The Revenue’s case before us in light of the assessment discussion is that the assessee’s above stated land indeed formed as “capital asset” within the meaning of sec.2(14) of the Act attracting assessment of consequential capital gains on account of its sale/transfer.

4.

The assessee on the other hand relies on its alleged explanation before the Assessing Officer that the land in question was very well beyond the statutory distance of 8 KM from the nearest municipal limits. Learned counsel has also 3 ITA.No.81/NAG./2020 reiterated the very fact on the ground that the assessee had duly placed on record the revenue authorities’ certificate contesting the Assessing Officer’s proposal.

5.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above stated sole issue and note that the CIT(A) has reversed the Assessing Officer’s action as under :

4 ITA.No.81/NAG./2020 5.1. It is in this factual backdrop we note that neither the Assessing Officer has been able to exactly calculate the distance of the assessee’s land sold going by road distance from the nearest municipal limits nor the latter himself could file any evidence apart from some patwari’s certificate which cannot be taken as authentic in absence of any such statutory authority vested in him. Faced with the situation, we are of the 5 ITA.No.81/NAG./2020 view that the instant issue deserves to be re-decided by the learned CIT(A) after getting the necessary remand report from the field authorities clarifying the exact distance between assessee’s land sold vis-à-vis the nearest municipal limits, as they existed on the date of the transfer of capital asset i.e., parcel of agricultural land, as per law. Needful may be done within three effective opportunities of hearing. We order accordingly.

All other pleadings stand render academic at this stage.

6.

This Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.12.2023.

More judgments on Section 2(14)

All 1,130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(14) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →