GHANSHYAM SHANKARRAO ASHTANKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 54/NAG/2020Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 September 2023AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK RIPOTE (Accountant Member)9 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that the certificate from the competent authority (Nagpur Improvement Trust) regarding the land's distance from municipal limits should prevail over Google Maps measurements. Therefore, the land was not treated as a capital asset.

What were the facts?

The assessee transferred agricultural land and claimed it was outside the 8 km radius for capital asset classification. The Assessing Officer used Google Maps to determine the distance, while the assessee relied on a certificate from the Nagpur Improvement Trust.

What were the issues?

Whether the agricultural land transferred by the assessee falls within the definition of a capital asset as per Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, considering the 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 & DR. DIPAK RIPOTE

Hearing: 01.09.2023Pronounced: 28.09.2023

2016, arises against the CIT(A)-2, Nagpur’s Order in Appeal No.CIT(A)-2/364/2017-18 ITBA No.10526, dated 27.12.2019, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

2 ITA.No.54/NAG./2020 1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A)2, Nagpur was not justified in not considering the Areal Distance of 8 Kms from the side of the Area where Assessees Agricultural Land was situated and this honourable court be pleased to allow the same, as claimed U/s 2(14) (iii)(a) b(iii).

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A)2, Nagpur was not justified in not considering the Non Receipt Of Rs.7100000/- out of sales

consideration of Rs.14600000/- while taxing the entire sales proceeds and this honorable court be pleased to allow the deduction of Rs.7100000/- which was never received by the appellant.

3.

Any other ground as may be raised at the time of hearing

of this appeal, for which the appellant craves leave.”

3. Next comes CIT(A)'s detailed discussion upholding the Assessing Officer’s action treating the assessee’s land/capital asset transferred in the relevant previous year as failing within 8 KM u/sec.2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) as under :

3 ITA.No.54/NAG./2020 4 ITA.No.54/NAG./2020 5 ITA.No.54/NAG./2020 6 ITA.No.54/NAG./2020 7 ITA.No.54/NAG./2020 8 ITA.No.54/NAG./2020

4.

Suffice to say, the only issue before us is regarding distance of the assessee’s land transferred in the relevant previous year as to whether the same falls within or beyond 8 KM distance from Nagpur city’s municipal limits. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the ‘Nagpur Improvement Trust’ had indeed issued a certificate in favour of the assessee that his land was situated at a distance of 8.64 KM from municipal limits as per the assessment discussion itself at page-2 para-4 in assessment order dated 18.12.2016. The Revenue placed vehement reliance on the Assessing Officer’s subsequent discussion in para-4 wherein he had measured the impugned distance by google map which culminated in the Assessing Officer’s land transferred getting treated as a capital asset within the meaning of sec.2(14) of the Act.

5.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival stands and find merit in assessee’s arguments for the precise reason that the competent authority herein i.e., ‘Nagpur Improvement Trust’ had already issued a certificate certifying the exact distance of assessee’s land from municipal limits. We thus conclude that merely because some google map assistant indicated the distance less than that would hardly support the Revenue’s stand. We thus accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance in very terms.

Ordered accordingly.

9 ITA.No.54/NAG./2020

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.09.2023.

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 →