TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be at a distance of 6Kms and 9.53 Kms respectively from the two municipalities. The Ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with these certificates submitted by the assessee. The assessee also contended that the land was used for growing Sorghum (Jawar) and furnished copies of Form No.12 evidencing the fact of the land being cultivated since 2007-08. The Ld.CIT(A) has not addressed this aspect also. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made without dealing with the contentions and evidences filed by the assessee. The issue clearly needs reconsideration. Since the matter for determination is the factual aspect of whether the land sold by the assessee fulfilled the criteria of section 2(14) of the Act to qualify as not being a capital asset, it would serve the interest of justice by restoring the issue to the AO who may determine the same by making all necessary inquiries and taking note of the evidences filed by the assessee.Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.424/Ahd/2019 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2023 - Smt.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. The claim of the assessee was accepted in assessment framed under section143(3) of the Act, but subsequently, an order under section 263 of the Act, dated 13.3.2017, was passed by the ld.Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad, setting aside the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act with the direction to frame the order afresh after making necessary inquiry vis a vis the assesses claim of the impugned land qualifying as not being a capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of the Act. The AO was directed to make inquiries under section 133(6) of the Act regarding the distance of the assessee s land in Tarapur from Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad Municipal limit. The ld.PCIT observed that as per the available records the land was located within 4 kms. limit of Gandhinagar Municipal limit and 5 kms. from Ahmedabad City, and therefore, claim of the assessee, under section 2(14) of the Act , of the asset not qualifying as capital asset,was not in accordance with law. Before the AO, the assessee submitted the following documents as evidence that the land fulfilled all conditions stipulated u/s 2(14) to not qualify as capital asset:: i) Certification from Talati, Village Tarapur (Dist. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fying distance of the land being within 4 Km and 5km limit of Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad municipal limits and also not being an agricultural land: i) A letter No.GUDA/Tantrik/3756/2017 dated 28/07/2017 along with copy of MAP, certifying distance at 3 Kms. from boundary limits of Gandhinagar Corporation to Land S.No.243; ii) SthavarMilkatMulyakan Ganaripatrak from Subregistrar, Gandhinagar, Sector 11, Gandhiangar. It is stated that category of land is AGRI-MINERAL and rate of stamp duty is at Rs.21000 i.e.rte applicable to developed land; iii) Further, vide para-8 of the order u/s.263 of the Act passed by Pr.CIT-3, Ahmedabad it observed that, as verified on district map of Gandhinagar, Tarapur is situated on National Highway Number 8C, between Adalaj and VasanaHadmatia in Gandhiangar. The map shows that it is only 2.58 kms from the municipal limit of Gandhinagar and Tarapur is only 4.27 km from Ahmedabad. 8. The AO accordingly held that the land in question did not qualify as not being a capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of the Act and the assesses claim of exemption of capital gains earned thereon needed to be rejected. The aforestated documents were confronted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO has also got the information u/s.133(6) of the Ct from the following authorities and confronted the appellant at the time of assessment proceedings:- 11. Perusal of the above reveals that the Ld.CIT(A) agreed with the AO while rejecting the documents submitted by the assessee to the AO proving that the land was situated beyond the prescribed limits of Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad municipalities and that it was agricultural land. The Ld.CIT(A) held that the AO had correctly doubted the veracity of these documents, being found by the AO to be all xerox copies and vague. The AO had noted that the documents certifying distance did not mention whether it was measured from the city limits or municipal limits. Also the document evidencing the land being agricultural was only noted by the AO to be a certificate from GUDA that the land was situated in Agri Zone. He found that no evidence was produced by the assessee of having utilized the land for agricultural purposes. 12. The above facts noted by the AO/CIT(A) have remained uncontroverted before us therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) upholding the AO s rejection of the documents submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
