Smt. Urvi Amrish Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(12), Ahmedabad

ITA 2679/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8267 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2679/AHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SMT. URVI AMRISH PATEL, 14, AVLON CREST, OPP. SHASHWAT BUNGALOW, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD PAN : BREPP 0591 D VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(12), AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MJ SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : RAJDEEP SINGH, SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 13/10/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/10/2017 / O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-3, AHMEDABAD DATED 01.09.2016 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A GRICULTURAL LAND WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 3. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIV ES, I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REG ARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER AND IN POSSESSION OF THE AGRICUL TURAL LAND WHICH WAS SOLD BY HER DURING THE YEAR. THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PA RTIES RELATES TO WHETHER THE ALLEGED AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SITUATED WITHIN 8 KMS OF AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL LIMIT; THUS, FALLS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ASSET PROV IDED IN SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE ASSESSEES LAND IS TO BE MEASURED BY THE MUN ICIPAL LIMIT NOTIFIED BY THE AHMEDABAD MUNICIPALITY IN 2006; WHEREAS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ITA NO. 2679/AHD/2016 SMT. URVI AMRISH PATEL VS. ITO FOR AY: 2012-13 2 DISTANCE IS TO BE MEASURED FROM THE BOUNDARY NOTIFI ED IN THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT ON 06.01.1994. 4. ON ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD, I FIND THAT IF THE DI STANCE IS BEING MEASURED FROM THE LATEST MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY NOTIFIED BY THE AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, THEN THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD FALL WITHIN THE LIMIT OF 8 KMS AND IT BE CONSTRUED AS A CAPITAL ASSET WHOSE TRANSFER W ILL RESULT ANY GAIN OR LOSS FOR ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, IF THE DISTANCE IS BEING MEASU RED FROM THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY CONSIDERED IN THE NOTIFICATION DATED 06.01 .1994 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THEN THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE LAND IN DISPUTE WILL BE BEYOND 8 KMS AND IT WILL NOT BE A CAPITAL ASSET. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ITA NOS.2138 AND 2564/AHD/2012 HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AND HELD THAT THE DISTANCE IS TO BE MEASURED FROM THE BOUNDARY CONSIDERED IN THE NOTIFICATION DATED 06.01.1994. T HE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THIS ASPECT . 6. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I FIND THAT THE DIVISION BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF AKASH DEEP FARMS P. LTD IN ITA NOS. 2138 AND 2564/AHD/2012 HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE ELABORATELY AND ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE NOTIFICATION REPRODUCED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) I N HIS ORDER IN THAT CASE. THE DISCUSSIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL READ AS UNDER:- 5. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ACTION OF THE AO, THE ASS ESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) HAS EXAM INED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL, AND BY WAY OF REASONED FINDING HELD THAT GAIN ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND WOULD NOT BE TAXABLE. WELL REASONED FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) READS AS UNDER: '3.5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSES SMENT ORDER, AO'S REPORT AND APPELLANT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND REJOI NDER. APPELLANT SOLD ITA NO. 2679/AHD/2016 SMT. URVI AMRISH PATEL VS. ITO FOR AY: 2012-13 3 CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL LANDS DURING THE YEAR AND CLAI MED THE SAME AS EXEMPT WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET UNDER SECTION 2(14)(III). ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS SOLD BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR WERE SITUATED V/ITHIN 8 KM FROM AHM EDABAD MUNICIPAL LIMIT AND THEREFORE THESE LANDS WERE CAPITAL ASSETS AND SALE THEREOF WERE LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS. ASSESSING OFFICER GOT CER TIFICATE FROM ADDA THAT LANDS SITUATED IN TWO VILLAGES WERE WITHIN 8 KM OF AIR DISTANCE FROM THE LIMIT OF AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. A MAP DRA WN BY AUDA IS ALSO INCORPORATED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER QUOTED EARLIE R. DURING APPEAL, APPELLANT TOOK TWO ARGUMENTS-(L) FOR CALCULATING DI STANCE FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT, ROAD DISTANCE IS TO BE SEEN AND NOT AIR DIST ANCE AS DONE BY THE AO. APPELLANT SUBMITTED SEVERAL JUDICIAL DECISIONS SUPP ORTING ITS CONTENTION. (2) THE AUDA HAS TAKEN PRESENT MUNICIPAL LIMIT WHER EAS MUNICIPAL LIMIT HAS EXPANDED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REPORTS SUBMITTED THAT LIM ITS OF AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION INCREASED FROM 2006 AND THERE FORE AT THE TIME OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS, AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL COR PORATION LIMITS HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXPANDED AND THEREFORE FROM THE EXPAND ED MUNICIPAL LIMIT, THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS SITUATED IN TELAV VILLAGE WE RE WITHIN 8 KM AND THEREFORE THE SAME WERE CAPITAL ASSET AND TAXABLE U NDER SECTION 45. AS REGARDS AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN KANETI VILLAG E, ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT OBJECT THAT THE SAME WAS SITUATED BEYOND 8 KM R OAD DISTANCE FROM AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL LIMIT. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF AIR DISTANCE OR ROAD DISTANCE FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS, ASSESSING OFFICER C OULD NOT COUNTER THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT EXC EPT MENTIONING THAT THESE DECISIONS WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT . CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE SUBMISSIONS AND REPORTS REFE RRED EARLIER, THIS ISSUE CAN BE DIVIDED IN TWO PARTS-(L) WHILE COMPUTI NG DISTANCE FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT, WHICH DISTANCE- AIR DISTANCE OR RO AD DISTANCE TO BE CONSIDERED. (2) WHICH MUNICIPAL LIMIT SHOULD BE CON SIDERED FOR COMPUTING DISTANCE FROM AGRICULTURE LAND- MUNICIPAL LIMIT ON THE DATE OF SALE OR MUNICIPAL LIMIT ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE NOTIFICATION BY THE GOVERNMENT OR MUNICIPAL LIMIT AS ON DATE. AS REGARDS THE FIRST PART OF THE ISSUE, APPELLANT S UBMITTED DECISION OF HONOURABLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN WHICH I T IS CLEARLY HELD THAT IT IS THE ROAD DISTANCE FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT A ND NOT AIR DISTANCE TO BE CONSIDERED. SEVERAL TRIBUNAL DECISIONS HAVE ALSO UPHELD' THIS VIEW. THERE IS NO JUDICIAL DECISION CONTRARY TO THIS VIEW . EVEN IF DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THESE DECISIONS, THESE ARE BINDING ON THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE DISTANCE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LA NDS SOLD BY THE ITA NO. 2679/AHD/2016 SMT. URVI AMRISH PATEL VS. ITO FOR AY: 2012-13 4 APPELLANT BY TAKING ROAD DISTANCE FROM THE LIMITS O F AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. AS REGARDS SECOND PART OF THE ISSUE AS TO MUNICIPAL LIMIT AS ON WHICH DATE IS TO BE CONSIDERED, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO R EFER THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF INCOME TAX ACT AS WELL AS NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT IN THIS REGARD. 2(14) (III) AGRICULTURAL LAND IN INDIA, NOT BEING L AND SITUATE-- (A) IN ANY AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURIS DICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY, MUNI CIPAL CORPORATION, NOTIFIED AREA ITA NO.2564 AND 2138/AHD/2012 COMMITTEE, TOWN AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN COMMITTEE, OR BY ANY OTHER NAME OR A CANTONMENT BOA RD AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF NOT LESS THAN TEN THOUSAN D ACCORDING TO THE LAST PRECEDING CENSUS OF WHICH THE RELEVANT FIGURES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; OR (B) IN ANY AREA WITHIN SUCH DISTANCE, NOT BEING MOR E THAN EIGHT KILOMETRES, FROM THE FOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALI TY OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN ITEM (A), AS THE CE NTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF, AND SCOPE FOR, URBANISATION OF THAT AREA AND OTHER RELEVANT CONSID ERATIONS, SPECIFY IN F HIS BEHALF BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFI CIAL GAZETTE. AS PER CLAUSE (B), IN ORDER TO BE EXCLUDED FROM TH E DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET, THE LAND SHOULD NOT BE SITUATED WITHIN SUCH DISTANC E FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY {REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A)} AS SPE CIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE. THE SAID NOTIFICATION I.E NOTIFICATION NO. (SO 9447) (FILE NO.164/3/87-ITA.I) DATED 06.01.1994 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITEM (B) OF SUB CLAUSE (III) OF CLAUSE ( 14) OF SECTION 2OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IS REPRODUCED BELOW: INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 : NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 2 (IA)(C), PROVISO. CLAUSE (II)(B) AND SECTION 2(14)(III)(B): URBANISATION OF AREAS NOTIFICATION NO. [SO 9447) (FILE NO. 164/3/87-ITA.I ), DATED. 6-1-1994 WHEREAS A DRAFT NOTIFICATION WAS PUBLISHED BY THE C ENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY ITEM (B) OF CLAUSE (II) OF THE PROVISO TO SUB-CLAUSE (C) OF CLAUSE (1A), AND ITEM (B) OF S UB-CLAUSE (III) OF CLAUSE (14), OF SECTION 2 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196I (43 OF 1961), IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUBSEC TION (II), DATED FEBRUARY ITA NO. 2679/AHD/2016 SMT. URVI AMRISH PATEL VS. ITO FOR AY: 2012-13 5 13, 1991, UNDER THE NOTIFICATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) NO. S.O . 91 (E), DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1991, FOR SPECIFYING CERTAIN AREAS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SAID CLAUSES AND OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS WERE INVITED FROM THE PUBLIC WITHIN A PERIOD OF 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE COPIES OF THE GAZETTE OF INDIA CONTAINING SUCH NOTIFICATION BECAME AVAILABLE TO TH E PUBLIC; AND WHEREAS COPIES OF THE SAID GAZETTE WERE MADE AV AILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON FEBRUARY 13, 1991; AND WHEREAS THE OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE SAID DRAFT NOTIFICATION HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT; NOW, THEREFORE, IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY ITEM (B) OF CLAUSE (II) OF THE PROVISO TO SUB-CLAUSE (C) OF CLAUSE (JA ) AND ITEM (B) OF SUB- CLAUSE (III) OF CLAUSE (14) OF SECTION 2 OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 (43 OF 1961), AND IN SUPERSESSION OF THE NOTIFICATION OF T HE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IN THE ERSTWHILE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND INSURANCE) NO. S.O. 77(E), DATED FEBRUARY 6, 1973, THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAVING REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF, AND SCOP E FOR URBANISATION OF THE AREAS CONCERNED AND OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIO NS, HEREBY SPECIFIES THE AREAS SHOWN IN COLUMN (4) OF THE SCHEDULE HERET O ANNEXED AND FALLING OUTSIDE THE LOCAL LIMITS OF MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONM ENT BOARD, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHOWN IN THE CORRESPONDING ENTRY IN COLUMN (3) THEREOF AND AGAINST THE STATE OR UNION TERRITORY SHOWN IN COLUM N (2) THEREOF FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROVISION OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961 (43 OF 1961). . GUJARAT 1 . AHMEDABAD AREA UPTO A DISTANCE OF 8 KMS FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS IN ALL DIRECTIONS EXPLN1(2) - THE REFERENCE TO MUNICIPAL LIMITS OR TH E LIMIT OF CANTONMENT BOARD IN THE SCHEDULE TO THIS NOTIFICATION IS TO TH E LIMITS AS EXISTING ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE NOTIFICATION IS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE.' FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LAND SITUATED WITHIN 8 KILOMETERS FROM AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMIT IS URBAN LAND AND TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSET. HOWEVER LAND SITUATED OUTSIDE 8 K M LIMIT WILL BE AGRICULTURAL LAND NOT TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSE T. FOR COMPUTING THE DISTANCE OF 8 KM, THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT IS ALSO DEFIN ED. SINCE MUNICIPAL LIMIT IS DYNAMIC AND CHANGING OVER A PERIOD OF TIME , AN EXPLANATION IS GIVEN AT THE END OF THE AFORESAID NOTIFICATION THAT MUNICIPAL LIMIT IS THE LIMIT AS EXISTING ON THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE NOTIFICATION AND NOT THE ITA NO. 2679/AHD/2016 SMT. URVI AMRISH PATEL VS. ITO FOR AY: 2012-13 6 LIMIT ON THE DATE OF TRANSACTION OR AS ON DATE. THE NOTIFICATION IS PUBLISHED ON 6-1-1994 AND THEREFORE THE MUNICIPAL L IMITS AS ON 6-1-1994 IS TO BE TAKEN FOR COMPUTING 8 KM ROAD DISTANCE TO DECIDE WHETHER AGRICULTURAL LAND IS A CAPITAL ASSET OR NOT. THE MU NICIPAL LIMIT ON THE DATE OF TRANSACTION IS NOT RELEVANT AS FAR AS APPLI CATION OF THIS NOTIFICATION IS CONCERNED. APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT PRIOR TO 200 6, THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WAS VERY RESTRIC TED AND FORM THAT LIMIT, BOTH THE VILLAGES IN WHICH AGRICULTURAL LAND S WERE SITUATED ARE MUCH BEYOND 8 KM DISTANCE. SINCE NOTIFICATIONS WITH REGARD TO AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS ARE AVAILABL E FROM WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER CAN WORK OUT THE DISTANCE OF THES E AGRICULTURAL LANDS. IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR PROVISIONS IN THE NOTIFICATION RE FERRED EARLIER, IT IS HELD THAT THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS RELEVANT FOR COMPUTING DI STANCE IS THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT EXISTING ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF TH IS NOTIFICATION I.E. 6-1- 1994. ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO CO MPUTE THE ROAD DISTANCE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF AMC AS ON 6-1 - 1994. IF THE DISTANCE IS WITHIN 8 KM, APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS AND IF THE DISTANCE IS BEYOND 8 KM, THE AGRICULTURA L LANDS SOLD WILL BE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF CAPITAL ASSET AND HENCE NO C APITAL GAINS CAN BE CHARGED ON THE SAME. THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY DIS POSED OFF.' 6. BEFORE US, LIMITED DISPUTE IS WHETHER THE DISTAN CE FOR IDENTIFYING THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE AGRICULTURE LAND IS TO BE TAKEN BY ROAD OR BY AERIAL. SECOND FOLD OF DISPUTE IS WHETHER THE MUNICIPAL LIM IT ENHANCED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS STARTING POINT OR IT IS TO BE TAKEN FROM NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DATED 6.1.1994. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT NOTIFICATION ISSUED ON 6.1.1994 BY TH E CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED. . . 10. NEXT OBJECTION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE STATE GOV ERNMENT HAS ENHANCED THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT IN 2006 AND THE DISTANCE IS TO BE M EASURED FROM NEW BOUNDARY OF THE AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMIT. AMC L IMIT WAS EXTENDED UPTO SARKHEJ SINCE 2006. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THIS ASPECT, AND HAS OBSERVED THAT PERUSAL OF SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 2(14)(III ) WOULD INDICATE THAT THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT IS TO BE TAKEN FROM THE AREA WHICH HAS BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN ITS GAZETTE NOTIFICATION. CEN TRAL GOVERNMENT HAS NOTIFIED THE AREA ON 6.1.1994, AND FROM THAT NOTIFI CATION, THE AGRICULTURE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SITUATED BEYOND A DISTANCE OF 8KMS . THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN LUCIDLY CONSIDERED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE FINDING EXTRACTED SUPRA. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THIS FINDING. IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IT IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 2679/AHD/2016 SMT. URVI AMRISH PATEL VS. ITO FOR AY: 2012-13 7 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL, I ALLOW THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLD THAT THE LAND OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT SITUATED WITHIN 8 KMS OF MUNICIPAL LIMIT AND, THEREFORE, BEI NG AGRICULTURAL LAND IT IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET. ON THE TRANSFER OF THIS LAND, THE GAIN ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 25/10/2017 BIJU T., SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! # / CONCERNED CIT 4. # ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. & ! , ! , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) %, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD