INCOME TAX OFFICER, BEHROR V. SMT. SEEMA YADAV, ALWAR

ITA 297/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6264 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SEEMA MEENA
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,O JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 297/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE ITO BEHROR CUKE VS. SMT. SEEMA YADAV W/O SHRI SATPAL YADAV ASIANA GREEN HILLS, NEEMRANA, BEHROR, ALWAR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ABWPY 6346 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY:SMT. SEEMA MEENA, JCIT - DR FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: NONE (DEPARTMENTAL A.D. ON RECORD) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 21/06/2018 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 /06/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 20-12-2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2014-15 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 1,84,90,706/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLO SED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND. ITA NO.297/JP/2018 THE ITO, BEHROR VS SMT. SEEMA YADAV, ALWAR 2 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCES OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A(3) OF THE I.T. RULES 1962 THAT THE LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SI TUATED 17 KM AND 22 KM FROM THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY I.E. BEH ROR WHICH WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 2.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUE, THE FACTS AS EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER:- 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O A ND SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. FOLLOWING FACTS HAVE EMERGE D; 1. THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE RELEVANT A.Y DECLARING A INCOME OF RS.7,94,080/- FR OM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION UNDER THE NAME OF M/S KRISH NA ASSOCIATES. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED AN AGRICULTURAL LA ND AS PER KHASRA NO.388 & 116 IN THE YEAR 2008. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD PART OF THE LAND IN 2 P LOTS DURING THE YEAR CONSIDERATION FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.42,87,00 0/- AND RS.30,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY. 4. THAT THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES HAD CHARGED STAMP D UTY AT THE DLC RATE PREVALENT FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND AT RS.54,66 ,696/- AND RS.1,38,82,586/- RESPECTIVELY. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL HENCE NO CAPITAL GAIN IS CHARGEABLE. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BECAU SE OF HIGH DLC, NO BUYER FOR THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS AVAILABLE AND THAT SHE WAS IN URGENT NEED OF MONEY TO PURCHAS E A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR HERSELF AND FAMILY. AND AL SO THE APPELLANT'S HUSBAND WAS SERIOUSLY SICK FROM BRAIN C ANCER AND SHE WAS ALSO IN NEED OF URGENT MONEY. THAT IS WHY SHE WAS FORCED BY CIRCUMSTANCES TO SELL PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN SMALLER PACKETS. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HA D ALSO FILED DETAILS OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY PURCHASED OUT OF SALE ITA NO.297/JP/2018 THE ITO, BEHROR VS SMT. SEEMA YADAV, ALWAR 3 CONSIDERATION FROM SH. ISHWAR SINGH DURING THE RELE VANT PERIOD. 8 THAT IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THE APPELLANT HAD SU BMITTED JAMABANDI RECORD AND GIRDWARI. 9. THAT THE A.O HAS REJECTED THE ASSESSEEE'S CLAIM ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE SH. ISHWA R SINGH FROM WHOM THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED RESIDENTIAL H OUSE FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HA S CALCULATED CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF 2 PLOTS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. 5.3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS O F THE CASE. I HAVE NOTICED THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSE SSEE HAD CLAIMED THE PROPERTY AS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET AS PER THE PROV ISION OF SECTION 2(14 ) OF THE ACT AND HAD SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF T HE CLAIM. THE A.O HAS NOT EXAMINED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WIT H REGARD TO THE PROPERTY AS PER SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. THE APPEL LANT HAD FILED JAMABANDI RECORD, GOOGLE MAP THAT SHOWS THE PROPERT Y IS SITUATED AT ALMOST 22 KM. FROM THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY. IN THIS REGARD THE FIRST QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT? IN THIS RE GARD THE PURCHASE DEED OF THE LAND ITSELF SAYS THAT THE LAND IN QUEST ION IS `KASHTKARI I.E AGRICULTURAL. THE JAMABANDI AND GIRDWARI RECORD ALS O SUGGEST THAT THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL. FURTHERMORE, THE APEX COURT H AS DEFINED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE FOLLOWING LANDMARK JUDGMEN T; HON'BLE APEX COURT JUDGMENT IN DEFINING THE TERM 'AGRICULTURAL LAND AND AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES'. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER; IN THE VERY EXPRESSION OF THE DEFINITION OF 'AGRICULTURAL LAND' IT NEED NOT ALWAYS BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE TO CONTINUE ITS IDENTITY BUT IT WILL NOT LOSE ITS IDENTITY AS LONG AS IT IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. WHEN ONCE A LAND IS PROVED TO BE AN AGRICULTURAL LAND ITS INCAPABILITY OF BEING USED AS SUCH SHOULD BE A PROOF AND THE CONTRARY IS A NON PR OOF THE DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED EITHER FACTUALLY, LEGALLY OR SCIENTIFIC ALLY THAT THE SOIL CONTENT OF THE SUIT LAND IS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING PUT TO USE FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE AS ABOVE. THAT TAKES US TO THE REAL LEGAL MEANING OF 'AGRICULTURE' AND 'AGRICULTURAL LAND' AS HAS BEEN SETTLED BOTH BY COURTS AND BY JURISTS. IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. BENOY KUMAR SAHAS ROY, THE SUPREME COURT DEALT WITH THE QUESTION ABOUT THE CLASSIFICATION AND THE MEANING OF 'AGRICULTURE' AND 'AGRICULTURAL LAND'. IT IS HELD THEREIN THAT: ITA NO.297/JP/2018 THE ITO, BEHROR VS SMT. SEEMA YADAV, ALWAR 4 THE MEANING THAT A LAND WHICH IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE IS ALSO INCORPORATED IN THE SAID PRECEDENT. 17. OUR OWN HIGH COURT IN SMT. MEENAKSHAMMA V. COMM ISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, 1967 (1) AN.W.R. 327 = AIR 1997 A.P. 189 HAD AN OCCASION TO DEAL WIT H THE QUESTION. WHILE FOLLOWING B. K. SAHAS ROY'S CAS E AND MEGA RAJ V. ALIA RAKHI, 1947 P.C. 72 THE MEANING OF 'AGRICULTURE' WAS ACCEPTED TO BE 'PERFORMING OPERATIONS LIKE TILLING OF THE LAND, SOWING OF SEED S, ETC' 'IT FOLLOWS, THEREFORE, THAT 'AGRICULTURAL LAND' IS LAND WHICH RELATES TO OR IS CONNECTED WITH THE AFORESAID BASIC OPERATIONS OF AGRICULTURE. '(PARA 8) FURTHERM ORE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE OPERATIONS OF AGRICULTURE AS ABOVE 'AGRICULTURAL LAND' HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE WORDS OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT AS HEREUNDER: THEREFORE, THE CLEAR EXPRESSIONS IN THE DECISIONS S UPRA SHOULD BRING A LAND WITHIN THE MEANING OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS LONG AS IT IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED OR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE UNLESS THE USER HAS STOPPED FOR JUSTIFIABLE REASONS. THAT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFINITIO N OF AGRICULTURAL LANDUNDER SECTION 2 SUB-CLAUSE (1)(C) OF THE APTL ACT. 18. WHEN WE ARE THINKING OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND IT MAY OPEN UP THE SCOPE TO KNOW THE AGRICULTURAL JURISPRUDENCE AND THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS. THE INITIAL DISTINCTION TO BE DRAWN IS BETWEENTHE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH URBAN PROPERTY AND RURAL PRO PERTY BECAUSE WITHIN THE RURAL PROPERTY THERE EXISTS BOTH AGRICULTURAL AND NON-AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES. FOR INSTANCE THE VILLAGERS SELECT A PLACE SUITABLE FOR DWELLING AND MAINTENANCE OF CATTLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER SUPERVISION AND CULTIVATION OF LANDS NEAR BY OR AT A REASONABLE DISTANCE. THIS WOULD BE POPULARL Y CALLED 'GRAMA THANA' (RESIDENTIAL PART OF THE VILLAGE OR THE VILLAGE PRO PER). THE REVENUE LAW OR LOCAL LAWS WAS LIKE THE. VILLAGE PANCHAYAT SHOULD DETERMI NE MIS. THE AREA IN THE VILLAGE EXCLUDING GRAMA THANA, ROADS, -ET CETERA, C OULD BE NORMALLY STYLED AS LANDS OR AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THEREFORE, THE REST WOULD BE NON-AGRICULTURAL. IN A COUNTRY LIKE INDIA THERE COULD BE A SAFE PRESUMPT ION THAT EVERY BIT OF LAND IS AGRICULTURAL, UNLESS QUALIFIED TO BE CONTRA AND THIS IS THE JOB O F LAW- MAKERS. THE PURPOSE OR UTILITY TO WHICH A LAND IS EAR-MARKED SHOULD SCIENTIFICALLY DETERMINE ITS NATURE. IN OTHER WORDS , FROM THE COMMONSENSE POINT OF VIEW A LAND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE SHOULD BE CALLED AGRICULTURAL LAND AND TO FOLLOW THE CONVERSE THEORY REGARDING NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE PRIMARY SENSE IN WHICH THE TERM 'AGRICULTURE' I S USED IS 'AGER' A FIELD' AND IF THE TERM IS UNDERSTOOD ONLY IN THAT SENSE AGRICULTURE WOULD BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO CULTIVATION OF LAND IN THE STRICT SENSE OF THE TERM MEANING THEREBY TILLING OF THE LAND, SOWING OF THE SEEDS, P LANTING AND SIMILAR OPERATIONS ON THE LAND INCLUDING THE SUBSEQUENT OPE RATIONS. ADMITTEDLY, AS ON THE DATE OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE SUIT LAND IT WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT COME OUT WITH A CASE THAT IT WA S NEVER USED AS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OR THAT IT IS INCAPABLE OF BEING USED AS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE CONTINUATION OF THE SAME ASSESSMENT TO THE SUIT LAND AS AN ITA NO.297/JP/2018 THE ITO, BEHROR VS SMT. SEEMA YADAV, ALWAR 5 AGRICULTURAL LAND MEANS MAT IT WAS RECOGNISED TO BE A LAND WHICH WAS CAPABLE OF BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THE SUBSEQUENT EVENT, MERELY BY CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT AS ABOVE, COULD NOT BE TAKEN TO HAVE CHANGED THE CHARA CTER OF THE SUIT LAND AS NONAGRICULTURAL LAND. THEREFORE, THIS COURT BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW, IS CONVINCED MAT THE SUIT LAND WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AS ON THE DATE OF THE ACQUISITION BY THE DEFENDANTS AND CONTINUED TO BE A S SUCH IN LAW ON ACQUISITION AND THAT IT IS NOT PROVED TO BE A LAND WHICH IS INCAPABLE OF BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND, THEREFORE, IT IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THUS THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. ONCE IT IS CONSIDERED AS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHETHER IT IS A CAPITAL ASSET OR NOT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT? THE PROVISION OF RELEVANT PART OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER; III) AGRICULTURAL LAND IN INDIA, NOT BEING LAND SITUATE (A) IN ANY AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURISDICT ION OF A MUNICIPALITY 15 . (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL CORPO RATION, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN COMMITTEE , OR BY ANY OTHER NAME) OR A CANTONMENT BOARD AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF NO T LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND 1-7 [ * ] ; OR (B) IN ANY AREA WITHIN THE DISTANCE, MEASURED AERIALLY, (1) NOT BEING MORE THAN TWO KILOMETRES, FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN ITEM (A) AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF MORE THAN TEN THOUSAN D BUT NOT EXCEEDING ONE LAKH; OR (II) NOT BEING MORE THAN SIX KILOMETRES, FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN ITEM (A) AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF MORE THAN ONE LAKH BU T NOT EXCEEDING TEN LAKH; OR (///) NOT BEING MORE THAN EIGHT KILOMETRES, FROM THE LOCA L LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN ITE M (A) AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF MORE THAN TEN LAKH. EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-CLAUSE, 'POPULATION' MEANS THE POPULATION ACCORDING TO THE LAST PRECEDING CENSUS O F WHICH THE RELEVANTFIGURES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF THE PRE VIOUS YEAR;]] IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT HAS FILED EVIDENCE AND THE GOOGLE MAP THAT DETERMINES THE LAND AT A DISTANCE OF 17 KM. AN D 22 KM. FROM NEAREST MUNICIPALITY I.E BEHROR. THEREFORE IN ACCOR DANCE WITH THE EVIDENCES AND THE DISCUSSION AS MENTIONED ABOVE, IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUEST ION IS NOT A 'CAPITAL ITA NO.297/JP/2018 THE ITO, BEHROR VS SMT. SEEMA YADAV, ALWAR 6 ASSET' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE A CT. IN THIS REGARD, I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL CITATION QUOTED B Y THE APPELLANT IN THE CASE OF IN CASE OF CIT V/S SANGEETA BEGUM (2006 ) 154 TAXMAN 346 ( ALL) THAT- ' THE ASSESSEE AFTER DIVIDING THE LAND INTO PLOTS, SOLD THE LAND SITUATED IN A VILLAGE WHICH WAS BEYON D 8 KM FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS. IT WAS HELD THAT THE LAND IN QUES TION WAS RURAL AGRICULTURE LAND NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CAPITAL GAIN.' ACCORDINGLY, NO CAPITAL GAIN IS LEVIABLE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION O F RS. 1,84,90,706/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS DELETED AND THE APPELLANT'S GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE ISSUE IS A LLOWED. 2.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR SUPPOR TED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 2.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD PURCHASED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AS PER KHASRA NO. 388 AND 116 DUR ING THE YEAR 2008. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD PART OF THE LAND I NTO TWO PLOTS FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 42.87 LACS AND RS. 30.00 LACS RESPECTIVELY D URING THE YEAR FOR WHICH THE STAMP AUTHORITY HAD CHARGED STAMP DUTY AT DLC R ATE APPLICABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND AT RS. 54,66,696/- AND RS. 1,38,82 ,586/-. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HA D SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AGRICULTURAL FOR WHICH NO CAPITAL GA IN IS CHARGEABLE. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING HAD FILED DETAILS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY PURCHASED OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION FROM S HRI ISHWAR SINGH DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND ALSO SUBMITTED THE JAMABAN DI AND GIRDAWARI RECORD. ITA NO.297/JP/2018 THE ITO, BEHROR VS SMT. SEEMA YADAV, ALWAR 7 HOWEVER, THE AO HAD REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE SHRI ISHWAR SINGH FR OM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FROM THE SALE CONSI DERATION. ACCORDINGLY THE AO HAD CALCULATED CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF T WO PLOTS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,84,90,706/-. I N FIRST APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,84,90,706/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT HAS FILED EVIDENCE AND THE GOOGLE MAP THAT DETERMINES THE LAND AT A DISTANCE O F 17 KM. AND 22 KM. FROM NEAREST MUNICIPALITY I.E BEHROR. THEREFORE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EVIDENCES AND THE DISCUSSION AS MENTIONED ABOVE, IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUEST ION IS NOT A 'CAPITAL ASSET' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE A CT. IN THIS REGARD, I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL CITATION QUOTED B Y THE APPELLANT IN THE CASE OF IN CASE OF CIT V/S SANGEETA BEGUM (2006 ) 154 TAXMAN 346 ( ALL) THAT- ' THE ASSESSEE AFTER DIVIDING THE LAND INTO PLOTS, SOLD THE LAND SITUATED IN A VILLAGE WHICH WAS BEYON D 8 KM FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS. IT WAS HELD THAT THE LAND IN QUES TION WAS RURAL AGRICULTURE LAND NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CAPITAL GAIN.' ACCORDINGLY, NO CAPITAL GAIN IS LEVIABLE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION O F RS. 1,84,90,706/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS DELETED AN D THE APPELLANT'S GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE ISSUE IS ALLOWED. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS ALSO EMERGE D THAT SHRI ISHWAR SINGH EXPIRED ON 02-01-2015 WHO WAS THE EXECUTANTS OF THE SAID RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTIO N IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH DOES NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF CAPITAL AS SETS. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE F IND THAT THAT THE LD. ITA NO.297/JP/2018 THE ITO, BEHROR VS SMT. SEEMA YADAV, ALWAR 8 CIT(A) HAS EXPLICITLY DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN QUEST ION AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25-06-2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO HKKXPUN (VIJAY PAL RAO) ( BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL; / JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25 /06/ 2018 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO,WARD- BEHROR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- SMT. SEEMA YADAV,ALWAR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.297 /JP/2018 ) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR