The ITO, Ward-2, Valsad V. Shri Keshavlal Ratanji Patel, Valsad

ITA 1246/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0520 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1246/AHD/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 VALSAD / VS. SHRI KESHAVLAL RATANJI PATEL SARVODAYA CHHATRALAYA TITHAL ROAD, VALSAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AMLPP 4166 F ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) AND CO NO.172/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 (OUT OF ITA NO.1246/AHD/2010) KESHAVLAL RATANJI PATEL (DECEASED) VS. ITO, THROUGH HANSABEN K.PATEL(L.R.) WARD-2 VALSAD VALSAD (CROSS OBJECTOR) .. (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI Y.P.VERMA, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJESH UPADHYAY / DATE OF HEARING : 07/03/2013 !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/03/2013 #$ / O R D E R PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSE E IS IN CROSS- OBJECTION AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A)-VALSAD DAT ED 23/11/2009 PASSED FOR ASST.YEAR 2006-07. ITA NO.1246/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.172/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. SHRI KESHAVLAL RATANJI PATEL ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 2 - REVENUES APPEAL, ITA NO.1246/AHD/2010 2.1. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS ARE A S UNDER:- 2.2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INTEREST INCOME AND CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 12.7.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.82,340/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.143(3) BY ORDER DATED 30/12/2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT R S.18,42,350/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE CARR IED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 23/11/2009 A LLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G SUBSTANTIVE GROUND: (1) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE LAND AS AG RICULTURE LAND AND NOT A CAPITAL ASSET. 2.3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AN AGRICULTURAL LAND LOCATED AT VILLAGE SEGVI, DIST.VALSAD FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.13,6 8,000/- AND CLAIMED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS EXEMPT. FROM THE INFO RMATION GATHERED BY THE AO, HE NOTICED THAT THE LAND SOLD B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS SITUATED WITHIN THE 8 KMS OF THE LOCAL LIMITS O F VALSAD MUNICIPALITY AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HA VE DECLARED THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND. IN RESPONSE TO THE Q UERY OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE INTER-ALIA SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY HIM IN ITA NO.1246/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.172/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. SHRI KESHAVLAL RATANJI PATEL ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 3 - 1971 BY WAY OF PARTITION AND THE LAND IS AN AGRICUL TURAL LAND. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTU RIST AND HAS BEEN CARRYING OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ON THE LAND FO R MANY YEARS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REVENUE RECORDS, THE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE LAND REVENUE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE C ONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE LAND IN QUES TION WAS IN CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14)(III) OF T HE ACT AND THEREFORE ANY PROFIT OR GAIN ON TRANSFER OF THE CAP ITAL ASSET WAS CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GA INS. HE ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN AFTER CONSI DERING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AND WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.17,60,011/-. 2.4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSE E CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UN DER:- 4.1. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TREATING AGRICULTURE LAND AS CAPITAL ASSETS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN TAX. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH FOLLOWING SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL MAIN ISSUE IS WHETHER AGRICULTURE LA ND ADMEASURING HECT 4-19.86 BEARONG S.NO.216 AND 218 S ITUATED AT VILLAGE SAGVI OF VALSAD TALUKA SOLD TO AGRICULTU RIST JAGDISHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL FOR AN AMOUNT OF ITA NO.1246/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.172/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. SHRI KESHAVLAL RATANJI PATEL ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 4 - RS.13,68,000/- IS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSETS A ND TO BE MADE TO LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAIN TAX ? LEARNED A.O. IGNORING FOLLOWING FACTS TREATED SALE OF SUCH LAND AS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET AND LEVIED CAPITAL GA IN WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT LAND SOLD IS AGRICULTURE LAND AND NOT CAPITAL ASSET FOR THE FOLL OWING FACTS: A. IN RECORD OF RIGHT I.E. LAND RECORD MAINTAINED BY GOVERNMENT IN FORM NO.7 & 12 AND SHOW FOLLOWING PARTICULARS. S.NO. TOTAL AREA CROPT. NAME OF THE OWNERS 216 HETC. M CHIKU, KESHAVB HAI RATANJIBHAI & 2.42.81 PADY SMT.HANSABEN KESHAVBHAI 218 HECT,1.77.05 SUGARCANE& KESHAVBHAI RAT ANJIBHAI& CHIKU SMT.HANSABEN KESHAVBHAI --------------- HECT, 4.19.86 B. AS PER SALE DEED FORESAID LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE OWNERS OF THE SAID LAND THROUGH PARTITION DUE EXECUTED ON DT.10.05.1971. C. AFORESAID LAND WAS SOLD IN HECTARES AND NOT SQ. YD, OR SQ.METERS AND PURCHASED BY THE BUYER NOT FOR, D. ANY COMMERCIAL PURPOSE ON FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPO SE BUT FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE. E. APPELLANT DID NOT USE ANY PORTION OF THE ABOVE LAND AT ANY TIME FOR NON-AGRICULTURE USE, NOR MADE AN APPLICATI ON TO ITA NO.1246/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.172/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. SHRI KESHAVLAL RATANJI PATEL ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 5 - CONVERT ANY PORTION OR PIECE OF AGRICULTURE LAND IN NON- AGRICULTURE PLOT OR PIECE. F. APPELLANT IS CARRYING ON AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY O N THE IMPUGNED LAND SINCE THEY ACQUIRED UNDER PARTITION O N DT. 10.05.1971. G. APPELLANT HAS SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1 ,01,203/- IN A.Y. 2006-07 IN WHICH THEY SOLD LAND. H. I AM FILING COPY OF JURISDICTION HIGH COURT OF GUJARATS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. MADHABHAI H.PATEL (1994) 208 ITR 638 (GUJ) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT AS LAND S OLD WAS SHOWN AS AGRICULTURE LAND IS REVENUE RECORD AND WHE N IT IS ACTUALLY USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE AND WHEN NO EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD SHOWING THAT ANY ATTEMPT WAS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER TO PURCHASE OR SELL ANY OTHER L AND IN THE PART. AT NO POINT OF TIME ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR PER MISSION TO USE THE LAND FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE AND THERE FORE SELL OF LAND WITHIN THE LIMIT OF AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPOR ATION WAS HELD TO BE AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN THE CASE OF Y OUR APPELLANT, THOUGH IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT YET IT IS W ORTH TO BE NOTED THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND IS SOLD TO AGRICULTURI ST AND HE IS TAKING AGRICULTURAL CROP FROM THE IMPUGNED LAND SEC ONDLY SURROUNDING OF THIS LAND IS GREEN BELT I.E. BY AGRI CULTURAL LAND OR FORMS WHICH IS GREEN BELT. THEREFORE CONSIDERING STATEMENT OF FACTS, WRITTEN S UBMISSION MADE ON 26.08.2009, AND THIS SUBMISSION AND CASE LA W CITED GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS PRAYED T O BE ALLOWED. 4.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSION AND AL SO SUBMISSION MADE BY LETTER DTD. 25.08.2009. THE LA ND IS SITUATED IN VILLAGE SAGVI IS NOT WITHIN JURISDICTIO N OF ANY MUNICIPALITY. I HAVE CONSIDERED JUDGMENT IN THE CA SE OF CIT ITA NO.1246/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.172/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. SHRI KESHAVLAL RATANJI PATEL ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 6 - V/S.MADHABHAI H.PATEL (1994) 208 ITR 638 (GUJ) WHER EIN IT IS HELD THAT AS LAND SOLD WAS AGRICULTURE LAND IN REVE NUE RECORD AND WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY USED FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOS E AND WHEN NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE BY ASSESSEE TO APPLY FOR THE PE RMISSION TO USE THE LAND FOR NON-AGRICULTURE PURPOSE. I HAV E CONSIDERED VARIOUS OTHER CASE LAWS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND I AM OF THE VIEW THAT SAID LAND CANNOT BE TREAT ED AS CAPITAL ASSET UNDER INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN TAX. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD.SR.DR MR.Y.P.VERMA SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ITS LAND SITUATED AT 5KMS FROM VALSAD AND THEREFORE THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14)(III) OF THE IT ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SUB-REGI STRAR HAS COLLECTED AN ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY OF RS.52,194/- ON THE DEED OF TRANSFER. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO OF CONSIDERING THE LAND A S CAPITAL ASSET CHARGEABLE TO TAX. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE MR .RAJESH UPADHYAY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A LAND SITUATE D AT VILLAGE SEGVI, DIST.VALSAD AND AS PER THE CENSUS OF 2001, THE POPU LATION WAS 2783 AND THE DISTANCE FROM TAHSIL CENTRE WAS ABOUT 6 KMS. H E PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TALUKA PANCHAYAT AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION PLACED AT PAGE NOS.28 & 29 OF THE PAPER - BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THE AREA IS CONSIDERED TO BE FALLING UNDER MUNICIPALITY, NECESSARY NOTIFICATION IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED BY THE ITA NO.1246/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.172/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. SHRI KESHAVLAL RATANJI PATEL ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 7 - GUJARAT GOVERNMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO SUCH NOTI FICATION WAS ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO SEGVI VILLAGE BY GUJARAT GOVERNMENT . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN AGRICULTURIST AN D HAS CARRIED OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ON THE SAID LAND FOR MANY Y EARS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STATUS OF THE LAND AS ON THE DAT E OF SALE WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IN THE REVENUE RECORDS THE LA ND WAS REGISTERED WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LAND HAS BEEN SOLD ON TH E BASIS OF HECTRES. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SHOWN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DER IVED FROM THE LAND FURNISHED IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT APPLIED FOR THE USE OF NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES FOR THE SAID LAND. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID LAND WAS NEVER USED AS NON-AGRIC ULTURAL PURPOSES RIGHT FROM 1971 AND EVEN PRIOR TO 1971. HE FURTHER PLACE D A RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADHABHAI H.PATEL VS. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 638(GUJ.). HE THUS SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADD ITION HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE LAND SITUATED IN VILLAGE SEGVI IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPALITY. THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IS THAT HE IS DERIVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE SAID LAND, THE STATUS OF THE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT APPLIED FOR USE OF NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES OF THE LAND, THE LAND WAS NEVER USED FOR N ON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND THE SALE OF LAND WAS FIXED AT LUMP SUM PRICE AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF PER SQ.YARD/METRE. THE AFORESAID FACTS CO ULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY BRINGING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. ITA NO.1246/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.172/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. SHRI KESHAVLAL RATANJI PATEL ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 8 - 6.1. IN THE CASE OF MADHABHAI H.PATEL VS. CIT (S UPRA), THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IS: WAS IT AGRIC ULTURAL LAND, WHEN IT WAS SOLD ? IF THE LAND IS RECORDED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE REVENUE RECORDS AND IF TILL THE DATE OF ITS SALE IT IS USED AND EXPLOITED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND, AND IF THE OWNER OF THE LAND HAD NOT TAKEN ANY STEP, WHICH WOULD INDICATE HIS INTENTION TO EXPLOIT THE L AND THEREAFTER AS NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND, THEN SUCH A PIECE OF LAND WILL H AVE TO BE REGARDED AS AGRICULTURAL EVEN THOUGH IT IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OR THAT IT IS SOLD ON PER SQUARE YARD BASIS AND NOT AC REAGE BASIS. THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH SUCH A LAND IS SOLD, THOUGH RELEV ANT, WILL NOT HAVE THAT MUCH IMPORTANCE AND WEIGHT AS IT WOULD HAVE IN A CASE WHERE THE LAND HAS REMAINED PADATAR OR IDLE OR IS USED FOR TH E AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE ONLY BY WAY OF STOP-GAP ARRANGEMENT. SO FAR AS THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE CONCERNED, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE LA ND, TILL IT WAS SOLD, WAS CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE REVENUE RECORDS. IN THE VILLAGE FORM NO. VII AND XII, POPULARLY KNOWN AS `RECORD OF RIGHTS' IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE WHOLE OF THE LAND WAS CULTIVATED TILL THE YEAR 1967- 68. THE LAND WAS CULTIVATED PERSONALLY BY THE ASSES SEE. THE SAID LAND BELONGED TO THE FAMILY AND HE GOT IT BY WAY OF INHE RITANCE AND NOT BY WAY OF PURCHASE FROM SOME OTHER PARTY. THERE IS NO MATERIAL WHICH DISCLOSES THAT ANY ATTEMPT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER TO PURCHASE OR SELL ANY OTHER LAND IN THE PAST. HE HAD NOT, AT ANY POINT OF TIME, APPLIED FOR PERMISSION TO USE THE LAND FOR NON-AGRI CULTURAL PURPOSE. ALL THESE FACTORS HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AL ONG WITH THE OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS, VIZ., THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD TO A CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY; THAT IT WAS SOLD AT RS. 20 PER SQ. YARD, A ND THAT IT WAS SITUATED WITHIN THE CORPORATION LIMITS OF AHMEDABAD CITY. IT IS, THEREFORE, NOT POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS UNREASONABLE OR ERRONEOUS IN LAW. EVEN IF THE INTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS CONSIDERED, WHEN HE DECIDED TO SELL THE LAND, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT HE WANTED TO SELL THE LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN THE AGREEMENT IT IS IN TERMS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SELLING THE LAND AS AGRICULTURAL L AND ONLY AND, THEREFORE, WAS NOT GOING TO SIGN ANY APPLICATION OR PLAN FOR A NON- AGRICULTURAL USE OF THE SAID LAND. THERE IS NO MATE RIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ANY PART EITHER IN GETTING THE P LOTS SUB-DIVIDED INTO SUB-PLOTS, OR IN GETTING THE PLANS PREPARED AND PAS SED FOR NON- AGRICULTURAL USE. ALL THOSE STEPS WERE TAKEN BY THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND ITA NO.1246/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.172/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. SHRI KESHAVLAL RATANJI PATEL ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 9 - AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE SUPRE ME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT IS, THEREFORE, NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED AN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. 7. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHICH IS UPHELD AND THUS T HE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.172/AHD/2010 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND IN HIS CROSS- OBJECTION:- 1) LR.ITO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO HOLD AGRICU LTURAL LAND AS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AND TO COMPUTE CAPITAL GAI N ON THE ESTIMATED SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.19,90,400/- AS AGAINS T RS.13,68,000/- ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEED. 2) LAND IN QUESTION IS OWNED JOINTLY BY (1) KESHAVBHAI RATANJI PATEL AND (2) SMT.HANSABEN K.PATEL AND THEREFORE AL LEGED ENTIRE CAPITAL GAIN IS WRONGLY LEVIED IN THE CASE O F APPELLANT. 3) LR.A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO TREAT AGRI CULTURAL LAND SITUATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF VILLAGE SEGV I GRAM PANCHAYAT AND SOLD TO AGRICULTURIST WHO PURCHASED THE SAID LAND TO CARRY OUT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ON THIS LAN D AS CAPITAL ASSET. 9. AS FAR AS CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, SINCE A VIEW HAS ALREADY TAKEN (IN REVENUES APPEAL-SUPRA) THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ITA NO.1246/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.172/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. SHRI KESHAVLAL RATANJI PATEL ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 10 - IS NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE NOT LIABLE T O CAPITAL GAINS, THEREFORE, THE OBJECTION RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY REJECTED BEING INFRUCTUOUS. 10 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL AND THE CROSS OB JECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- ( D.K. TYAGI ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 15 / 03 /2013 %.., .'../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( )* + / CONCERNED CIT 4. + () / THE CIT(A)-I, VALSAD 5. ./0 '')*, )*', 12#(# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 034 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, . ' //TRUE COPY// '/% () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION DATED 11.3.2013 (DICTATION-PAD 11 PAGES ATTACHED) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 12.3.13 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S15.3.13 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 15.3.13 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER