TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - Dated:- 28-8-2014 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri D.C. Sharma ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 23/03/2011 of the learned C.I.T.(A)-II, Jaipur for the A.Y. 2007-08. The sole ground of appeal is against the land located in Khasra No. 319/320 in Sanjharia village on Sanganer Tehsil was not a capital asset U/s 2(14) of the Act. 2. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee sold her land to M/s Vatika Ltd. on 19/05/2006 for a sale consideration of ₹ 67,20,000/-. The assessee was given four notices U/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act), which were partly complied with. When ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer calculated long term capital gain at ₹ 66,44,797/-. The assessee claimed exemption at ₹ 20,12,000/- and expenditure against the sale proceeds at ₹ 66,81,020/- including deduction U/s 54B and 54D of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was unable to bring out any evidence regarding the expenditure of ₹ 45,06,577/- of the Act, therefore, he computed long term capital gain at ₹ 45,06,577/- after allowing the exemption 54 of the Act at ₹ 21,38,220/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal by observing as under:- I have carefully considered the facts of the case and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld by the appellant was located at a distance of about 9 kms. (i.e. more than 8 kms.) from the limits of the Jaipur Nagar Nigam. Therefore, on these facts, it is held that the agricultural land sold by the appellant, in question, cannot be treated as a capital asset U/s 2(14) of the I.T. At and consequently, the appellant cannot be made liable for the impugned long term capital gain on sale of such agricultural land. Thus, the A.O. is directed to delete the impugned addition of ₹ 45,06,577/- made as long term capital gain, in the appellant s case. Further, as the learned A.R. s main argument, claiming that the appellant was not liable to any capital gains in respect of sale of her agricultural land which was not a capital asset, has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore than 8 Kms by quoting irrelevant example not fulfilling the conditions similar to Smt. Kamala Devi is meaningless and have no negative value against the assessee. It is further argued that Tehsildar of Jaipur Nagar Nigam had sent a letter NO. 451 on 14/2/2011 and clarified that agricultural land of Khasra No. 319 and 320 in village Sanjhariya, Tehsil Sanganer is outside the municipal limit, which ends on last revenue village Hasampura Bas Bhakrota, khasra No. 315 in West side of this village. The assessee khasra number in village Sanjhariya is situated at a distance of 9 Kms from the municipal limit. She further relied on the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Smt. Sanjeeda Begum (2006) 154 Taxman 346 and prayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
