9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. b) The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the land or the capital asset in question transferred by the assessee is under Rajendra Nagar Municipality, which is not notified by the Central Government for the purpose of treating the same as capital asset as required by u/s. 2(14)(iii)(b) of I.T. Act, 1961. c) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the land or the capital asset in question is within the distance of eight kilometres from the municipal limits of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, which is notified by the Central Government under notification. d) The learned CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the land or capital asset in question being registered by the Rajendra Nagar Revenue Authorities does not partake the ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 10.2.2012 wherein it was held as under: "9. We heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The assessee objected at the time of hearing to the grounds raised by the Revenue. Similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1024 to 1027/Hyd/2011 & 4 others in the case of Gousia Begum, Hyderabad & Others. The Tribunal vide its order dated 16th January, 2012 has held as follows: "5. We have considered the rival submissions. We do not find merit in the contention of the assessee. The land in question giving rise to capital gain was, in fact, urban land though agricultural operations have been carried out on them. The assessee placed before the lower authorities pahani patrika, Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Anjana Sehgal (supra) that the expression "from the local limits of any municipality" used in section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income-tax Act denotes "any municipality or municipality of the District in which the land is situated". Further, capital gains arising from the transfer of agricultural land situated in municipal or other urban areas or notified adjoining areas will be liable to income-tax. In this view of the matter, and considering the facts and the circumstances of the present case, in our considered view, the lower authorities are justified in determining the land in question, as capital asset liable for income- tax. With regard to determination of cost of acquisition of the land disposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for statistical purpose." 10. In view of the above findings of the Tribunal, we are inclined to allow the ground raised by the Revenue by holding that the land which is transferred is a capital asset liable for capital gain. 10.1. In view of the above findings of the Tribunal on the issue relating to the treatment of the land transfer, we are of the opinion that the land transferred by the assessee is a capital asset, liable for capital gain. Hence, this ground of the Revenue is allowed. 4. Respectfully following the above order of the Tribunal, we are inclined to allow the appeal of the Revenue. 5. The assessee filed the Cross Objection stating that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal. 6. The CO filed by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays against the appellate order of the CIT(A), is concerned, one has to admit that the delay involved is inordinate and not marginal. The delay could not have been mitigated to any great extent, since the assessee not vigilant in exhausting the legal remedy available to it. It is settled position of law that it is only marginal delays that can be condoned, and not inordinate delays running into several years. We may at this juncture, refer to the Third Member decision of Tribunal (Chennai) in the case of Jt. CIT V/s. Tractors & Farms Ltd. ( 104 ITD 149)-TM, wherein drawing out a distinction between normal delay and inordinate delay, it has been observed, vide head-note on page 150 of the Reports (104 ITD) as follows- "A distinction must be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361 has held that the cause for the delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision. Where no negligence, nor inaction, or want of bona fides can be imputed to the assessee a liberal construction of the provisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers of justice must co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
