Smt. Prema Dhatri Rao, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1732/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51942 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO. 1732/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SMT. PREMA DHATRI RAO, NO. 13, SATHYANARAYANA AVENUE, BOAT CLUB ROAD, CHENNAI-600 028. (PAN: AAAPR8254R) V. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SALARY CIRCLE-II(3), CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17-10-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-10-2011 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-IV, CHENNAI IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-IV/CH E/27/08-09 DATED 05-05-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, LEARNED SR. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. I.T.A. NO.1732/MDS/2010 2 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD SOLD CERTAIN LANDS IN MADIPAKKAM (PALLAVARAM MUNICIPALITY) TO THE TOTAL E XTENT OF 32.5 CENTS. THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED TO THE EXTENT OF ` 14.80 LAKHS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN NABARD BONDS AND HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT WAS TH E SUBMISSION THAT THE LANDS WHICH WERE SOLD WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. IT WAS TH E SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE LAND SOLD WAS SITUAT ED IN THE MUNICIPALITY WHERE THE POPULATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY EXCEEDED 10,000 HAD HELD THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS A CAPITAL ASSET, THE SALE OF WHICH RESULTED IN CAPI TAL GAINS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THE LAND SOLD WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE SA ME WAS NOT LIABLE FOR LEVY OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND S SOLD WERE RECORDED AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS. HOWEVER, THE LAND WAS SITUATED WITHIN THE LIMIT OF PALLAVARAM MUNICIPALITY WHICH WAS NOTIFIED AREA AND THE POPULA TION OF THE MUNICIPALITY EXCEEDED 10,000 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LANDS SOLD WER E LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSET, THE SALE OF WHICH RESULTED IN CAPITA L GAINS. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS I T IS NOTICED THAT THE LAND SOLD IS WITHIN THE PALLAVARAM MUNICIPALITY, WHICH IS A N OTIFIED MUNICIPALITY AND AS NOTHING HAS BEEN SHOWN TO PROVE THAT THE POPULATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY WAS LESS THAN I.T.A. NO.1732/MDS/2010 3 10,000, THE LAND SOLD IS LIABLE TO BE TREATED ONLY AS A CAPITAL ASSET IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F G.M. OMER KHAN V. ADDL. CIT (1992) 63 TAXMAN 533 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SALE OF T HE SAME WOULD GIVE RISE TO THE LEVY OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CI T(A) ON THE ISSUE IS ON A RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17/10/2 011. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 17 TH OCTOBER, 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE