KRISHNA DEVI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7590/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 November 2023AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)19 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the distance of the land from the municipal limits was less than 8 km, making it a capital asset. The co-owner's assessment order did not adjudicate this issue, and the evidence supported the AO's finding.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold agricultural land, claiming it was not a capital asset due to its distance from the municipality. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case and made additions under Section 50C, treating the land as a capital asset. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the AO's action.

What were the issues?

Whether the agricultural land sold by the assessee qualifies as a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, and if the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 2(14),Section 50C,Section 143(3),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate
Hearing: 12/10/2023Pronounced: 09/11/2023

per the Remand Report, it is clear that the village Motra/Morti is 2.5-03 K.M. away from the outer limit of the GMC, which is contrary to the stand taken by the assessee before us that the distance of village Morti would be more than 8 K.M. from the outer limit of Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation. It is the contention of the Ld. AR that the Google map relied by the CIT(A) and the A.O. in the remand report is of the year 2017 and the property has been purchased way back in 2008, therefore, the distance measured with the help of Google Map cannot be relied. The said contention the Ld. AR does not have any merit as distance between the property and the outer limit of the municipality will not increase or decrease until and unless there is expansion of the boundaries of the receptive places. De-hors the Google Map, the fact remains that the distance from Rajnagar Extension area to village Morta/Morti is in the visit of 2.5 kilo meters only and in any circumstances even during the sale of the property in the year 2008, the distance of village Morta would be less than 8 kilo meters from the outer limit of the Ghaziabad, Municipal Corporation.

8.

The Assessee's Representative has emphasized on the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act in the case of co- owner, wherein the A.O. of the co-owner claimed to have accepted the contention that the land is situated beyond a distance of 8 kilo meters.

9.

We have gone through the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act in the case of the co-owner Smt. Sudha Tyagi, there is no mention/adjudication regarding the issue of grant of exemption to Assessee Smt. Sudha Tyagi in the assessment order. The material available on record in the present case were also not been looked it into by the A.O. of the co-owner besides the same, even if the A.O. of the co-owner erroneously grants the exemption and refrained from making addition u/s 50C of the Act, the fact remains that the properties which were sold by the Assessee along with the co-owner is not beyond 8 kilometers of distance from the outer limit Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam (GMC).

10.

In so far as the certificate issued by the Ghaziabadad Nagar Nigam is concerned, considering the fact that during the Remand proceedings, the Ld. A.O. after making extensive enquiry and also relying on the corroborative evidences, found that the village Morti/Morta is only 2.5-03 kilometers from the outer limit of the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation. Therefore, we do not give much importance to the contents of the certificate which is far from truth.

1.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance made by the A.O. Further we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly directed the A.O. to recomputed the capital gain of Rs. 69,73,749/- by reducing the cost of acquisition of the said properties from the total sale consideration in the land of the Assessee. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the Grounds of Appeal of the Assessee, accordingly, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open Court on 09th November, 2023.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →