9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. The learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) submitted that there is a mistake apparent in the order as the Tribunal has overlooked the essential fact while deciding the appeal of assessee, thus, deciding the appeal by overlooking the facts is mistake apparent on record. The ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that the assessee has sold non-agriculture land for a consideration of Rs. 95.00 lacs. The stamp valuation authority has valued the land at Rs. 2.09 Crore. The assessee has not offered capital gain in his return of income. The land was a capital asset within meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Such fact is also evident from the contents of sale deed. Once it is established that land is capital asset, the conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Vrundavan Ginning and Oil Mill Vs ACIT, 126 taxmann.com 227 (Guj.). 4. We have considered the rival contention of both the parties and have gone through the order of Tribunal dated 27.03.2024. We find that case of assessee is that assessee is an agriculturist and sold her land situated at R. S. No.122/39, Block No.514, Moje - Jalalpore, Ubhrat, Dist - Navsari. The assessee set up his case that the land is situated eight kilometres beyond city limit and is not a capital asset, thus consideration receipt on sale thereof is not chargeable to tax. It was further case of assessee that distance of location of land is to be measured to the shortest route distance and that amendment for measuring the distance aerially is applicable for AY.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gricultural land till the date of sale. The permission was obtained prior to sale as it was necessary only because land was agricultural land and it was governed by provisions of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act. It was held that mere such permission was obtained does not mean that land cease to be agricultural land used. Thus, the sole controversy in the order impugned before Tribunal was with regard to distance of location of land and the manner of measuring it, either by road distance or by aerial view. The revenue is now seeking review of the order which is beyond the scope of provisions of section 254(2) as has been held by jurisdictional High Court in case of Vrundavan Ginning and Oil Mills vs. ACIT (supra). Thus, we do not fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
