DCIT, Circle -1(3), Hyderabad V. Shri M Kalyan Chakravarthy, Secunderabad

ITA 729/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 72922514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.729/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3) HYDERABAD. VS. MR. M. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SECUNDERABAD. PAN AIGPM0641K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MR. RAJAT MITRA FOR ASSESSEE : MR. A.V. RAGHURAM DATE OF HEARING : 15.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.10.2014 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD DATED 31.01.20 13. THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL IS WITH REFERENCE TO LEVY OF CA PITAL GAINS ON TRANSACTION ENTERED BY ASSESSEE ON SALE OF AGRICULT URAL LAND TO M/S. RAMKY ESTATES AND FARMS P. LTD. IT WAS THE ASS ESSING OFFICERS CONTENTION THAT TRANSACTION OF GPA ENTERE D INDICATES THAT LAND WAS MEANT FOR COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION AND DID NOT HAVE THE CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT THE TIME OF TRANSFER. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE PURCHASED AC.30.00 GTS OF LAND AT SURVEY NO. 230, SRINAGAR VILLAGE, MAHESWARA M MANDAL ON 22.08.2002 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.8,03,450/- FROM M/S. VISHWAS AGRI PLANTATION P. LTD., ASSESSEE ENTERED I NTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE ON 08.02.2006 WITH M/S. RAMKY EST ATES AND FARMS P. LTD., FOR SALE OF THE ABOVE LAND FOR A CON SIDERATION OF 2 ITA.NO.729/HYD/2013 MR. M. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SECUNDERABAD. RS.13.44 CRORES AND RECEIVED AN ADVANCE OF RS.7.70 CRORES. HOWEVER, ON 05.05.2007, ASSESSEE AS GUARANTOR EXE CUTED IRREVOCABLE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF M/S. RAMKY ESTATES & FARMS P. LTD. ASSESSEE DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS ON THIS TRANSACTION AT NIL CLAIMING THAT THE LAND SOLD IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SITUATED BEYOND 8 KM FROM ANY MUNICIPALITY. THE PROPERTY CONVEYED THROUGH THIS IR REVOCABLE GPA WAS TREATED AS SALE BY A.O. AND RELYING ON SOME CLAUSES OF IRREVOCABLE GPA, HELD THAT THE LAND WAS MEANT FOR C OMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER. HE ACCORDINGL Y, BROUGHT TO TAX THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND ALLOWED DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 54F TO THE EXTENT ASSESSEE INVESTED IN HOUS E AT BANJARA HILLS AND TAXED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,33,73,151 AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS CONTENDED THAT TRANSACTION IS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH I S BEYOND 8 KMS FROM GHMC. A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE AMO UNT OF RS.14.50 LAKHS SPENT BY ASSESSEE WAS TOWARDS DEVELO PMENT OF LAND AND CONVERSION FROM AGRICULTURE TO NON-AGRICUL TURE. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THIS WAS NOT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE BUT TOWARDS RATIFICATION CHARGES OF TIT LE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ASS ESSED BY LAND REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS THE AGRICULTURAL LAND A ND ASSESSEE NEVER APPLIED FOR CONVERSION OF THE SAID LAND INTO NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HAS FILED PATTADAR PASS BOOKS IN CONFIRMATION THEREON. ASSESSEE RELIED ON VARIOUS DE CISIONS, AS EXTRACTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER, TO CONTEN D THAT THE TRANSACTION DOES NOT RESULT ANY CAPITAL GAINS. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION AND DELETED THE SAME BY STATING AS UNDER : 3 ITA.NO.729/HYD/2013 MR. M. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SECUNDERABAD. 5.2. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT. G OING BY THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE, I FIND T HERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPE LLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTED THAT HE HAD SOLD THE LAND IN QUESTION DURING THE YEAR THROUGH AN IRREVOCABLE GPA TO M/S RAMKY ESTATES AND FARMS PVT LTD. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE LAND SO CONVEYED TO THE V ENDEE IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE , HE HAS FILED THE COPY OF PURCHASE DEED AND ALSO THE IRREVOCABLE GPA WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE TRANSACTION IS IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE REVENUE RECORDS CERTIFY THAT-THE LAND SO SOLD BY THE APPELL ANT DURING THE YEAR IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE APPELL ANT AT NO STAGE APPLIED TO REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR CONVERS ION OF HIS LAND AS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND. 5.2.1. AS REGARDS THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SPENT RS.14.50 LAKHS TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS, IT WAS CLARI FIED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT SPENT IS NOT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND BUT THE SAME IS TOWARDS RATIFICATION DEED FOR THE PROPERTY PURCHASED. THE F ACTS RELATING TO THIS EXPENDITURE WERE EXPLAINED THAT AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL PURCHASE OF LAND, ONE OF THE VENDO R, SRI K. ANAND RAO WAS A MINOR AND THE LANDS WERE SOLD TO M/ S VISHWAS AGRO PLANTATIONS IN THE YEAR 1993. THE APPE LLANT PURCHASED THE LAND IN THE YEAR 2002 FROM MLS VISHWA S AGRO PLANTATIONS. IN THE YEAR 2006, THE APPELLANT T HE APPELLANT GOT A RATIFICATION DEED FROM THE HITHERTO MINOR, SRI K. ANAND RAO IN FAVOUR OF M/S VISHWAS AGRO PLANTATIONS, THE SELLER TO THE APPELLANT, AND PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS.14.50 LAKHS TO THEM. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CLAIMS, THE APPELLANT FILED RATIFICATION DEED AND ALSO AN AFFIDAVIT FROM SRI K. ANAND RAO. 5.2.2. FROM THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, IT IS CLE AR THAT WHAT THE APPELLANT INCURRED IS TOWARDS RATIFIC ATION CHARGES FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AND NOT DEVELOPMENTAL EXPENDITURE AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS THAT THE APPELLANT CHANGED THE NATURE OF LAND AT THE TIME OF SALE. THIS OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT FOUNDED ON ANY MATERIAL BUT ON THE SURMISE T HAT THE APPELLANT IS SELLING THE LAND TO A COMPANY, WHI CH MAY USE THE LAND FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. HOWEVER, THE INTENTION OF THE PURCHASER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH T HE 4 ITA.NO.729/HYD/2013 MR. M. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SECUNDERABAD. NATURE OF LAND SO SOLD BY THE SELLER AT THE TIME OF SALE. WHAT THE APPELLANT SOLD DURING THE YEAR TO THE PURC HASER IS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THIS WAS EVIDENCED AND CER TIFIED BY THE REVENUE RECORDS. THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CLT V. DEBBIE ALMAO AND JOAQYA M ATRNAO REPORTED IN 339 ITR 59 (BOMBAY) SQUARELY APP LIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS CASE IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE LANDS WITHIN T WO YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE TO A PURCHASER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BEACH REPORT ONLY SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH AN INTENTI ON OF SELLING IT FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THE HUGE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE NEARLY 10 TIMES TO PURCHASE PRICE WOULD IN DICATE THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED WITH AN EYE ON THE NON- AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL. ON THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE COURT HELD THAT THE LAND SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN REVENUE RECORDS AND HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY PERMISSION FOR NON AGRICUL TURAL USE BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE AROSE NO CAPITAL GAINS. 5.2.3. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT WHAT TH E APPELLANT CONVEYED IN FAVOUR OF M/S. RAMKY STATES & FARMS PVT LTD., IS AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH IS 8KM AWAY FR OM ANY MUNICIPALITY AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY INCIDENCE OF C APITAL GAINS ON THIS TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GA INS MADE IN THIS CASE AT RS. 13,19,59,6L8/-. 4. LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SARIF ABIBI MOHMED IBRAHIM AND OTHERS 204 ITR 631 THE LAND IN QUESTION HAS TO BE PROVED AS AGRICULTURE LAND AND RELIED ON VARIOUS PRINCIPLES STATED THEREIN TO SUBMIT THAT ASSESSEE H AS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTU RAL LAND. ON A QUERY BY THE BENCH WHETHER THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED WHETHER ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS OFFERED IN EARLIER YEAR S, LEARNED D.R. FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THIS ASPECT WAS NOT EXAMI NED BY THE A.O. AT ALL. 5. LD. COUNSEL HOWEVER, CONTENDED THAT REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL ONLY ON THE REASON THAT THE PURCHASE R MEANT IT FOR USE OF COMMERCIAL PURPOSE AND THAT DOES NOT TAK E AWAY THE 5 ITA.NO.729/HYD/2013 MR. M. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SECUNDERABAD. FACT THAT ASSESSEES LAND IN QUESTION WAS NOT AGRIC ULTURAL LAND. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF MR. SRINIVAS NAICKER AND OTHERS VS. ITO 292 ITR 481 THE PROPOSITION THAT PURCHASER COULD PUT THE LAND F OR NON- AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE WAS NOT RELEVANT FOR ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION FROM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF AGRICULTURA L LAND. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD., VS. AC IT 335 ITR 77 FOR THE SAME PROPOSITION. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF TULLA VIRENDER ITA.NO.550/HYD/2012 DATED 04.07.2013 IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTIONS. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES, WE HAVE NO REASON TO DIFFER FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). A.O. HI MSELF ACCEPTS THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED EVIDENCE THAT LANDS ARE SIT UATED BEYOND 8 KMS FROM GHMC LIMITS AND THEY WERE PUT TO AGRICUL TURAL USE EARLIER. THE ONLY REASON THE A.O. TREATED THE LAND AS NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS THAT AGREEMENT OF SALE READ WITH IRREVOCABLE GPA DOES NOT INDICATE THAT LAND RETAI NED THE CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURE AT THE TIME OF TRANSFER. T HIS WAS ALSO THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE IN THE APPEAL THAT M/S . RAMKY ESTATES AND FARMS P. LTD., MAY PUT THE PROPERTY TO COMMERCIAL USE, THEREFORE, THE LAND WAS MEANT FOR COMMERCIAL E XPLOITATION AND DID NOT HAVE THE CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT THE TIME OF HIS TRANSFER. THESE OBSERVATIONS OF A.O. ARE NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT AS SESSEE HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND AND PUT TO AGRICULTURAL USE AS SUCH EARLIER. THIS FACT WAS ADMITTED BY AO IN THE O RDER ITSELF EVEN THOUGH A.O. CONSIDERED THAT AMOUNT SPENT OF 6 ITA.NO.729/HYD/2013 MR. M. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SECUNDERABAD. RS.14,50,000/- TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE FACT WAS THAT THE SAME WAS SPENT FOR RATIFICATION D EED AND NOT FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY ON THE AGRICULTURAL LA ND. THEREFORE, THE FACTS INDICATE THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOL D ONLY AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS ALSO USED AND PUT TO AG RICULTURAL USE EARLIER AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PURCHASER UTILIZED THE LAND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN EVIDENCE OF CHA NGE OF NATURE OF LAND AS WAS CONSIDERED BY ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 7. IN THE CASE OF M.S. SRINIVASA NAICKER AND OTHER S VS. ITO (SUPRA), THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER : A PERUSAL OF S. 45 SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENT AS O N THE DATE OF SALE OF TRANSFER IS THAT THE ASSET MUST BE CAPITAL ASSET, CONSIDERING THE DESCRIPTION UNDER THE ACT. T HE CHARGEABILITY TO TAX UNDER S. 45 ARISES ONLY IF ON THE DATE OF SALE, THE LANDS IN QUESTION RETAINED ITS CHARACTER AS A CAPITAL ASSET, WHICH MEANS, AN ASSET, WHICH DOES NOT ANSWER THE DEFINITION OF A CAPITAL ASSET AND WHICH IS AN AGRIC ULTURAL LAND FALLING WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF S. 2(11) (SIC ) WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF S. 45. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT TILL THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND, AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, IN FACT, WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, IN ITS ORDER, ST ATES THAT THE LAND WAS ACTUALLY UNDER CULTIVATION TILL THE DA TE OF SALE. A PERUSAL OF S. 45 SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENT AS ON THE DATE OF SALE OF TRANSFER IS THAT THE ASSET MUST BE CAPIT AL ASSET, CONSIDERING THE DESCRIPTION UNDER THE ACT. THE CHAR GEABILITY TO TAX UNDER S. 45 ARISES ONLY IF ON THE DATE OF SA LE, THE LAND IN QUESTION RETAINED ITS CHARACTER AS A CAPITAL ASS ET, WHICH MEANS, AN ASSET, WHICH DOES NOT ANSWER THE DEFINITI ON OF A CAPITAL ASSET AND WHICH IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND WOU LD AUTOMATICALLY BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF S. 45. IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PURCHASER HAD PURCHASED WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE TRANS FEROR HAD INTENDED TO USE THE LAND IN QUESTION BUT WITH T HE ADMITTED FINDING THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE UN DER AGRICULTURAL OPERATION ON THE DATE OF SALE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE MEANING OF CAPITAL ASSETS, IT MATTE RS VERY LITTLE HOW THE SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER INTENDED THE LA ND IN QUESTION TO BE PUT TO USE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TH ERE IS NO 7 ITA.NO.729/HYD/2013 MR. M. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SECUNDERABAD. REASON TO ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE THAT THE A SSET IN QUESTION IS A CAPITAL ASSET AND IT ATTRACTS LEVY OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX, IT HAVING SHED ITS CHARACTER AS AN AGRIC ULTURAL LAND ON THE SALE EFFECTED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CO NTRA INDICATION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS USING IT OR INTEND ING TO USE IT FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, IT IS DIFFICULT T O ACCEPT THE STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT. 8. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD., VS. ACIT (SUPR A) ON SIMILAR FACTS HELD AS UNDER : THE TRIBUNALS FINDING OF FACT IS CONTRARY TO ITS OWN RECORD AND, THEREFORE, IS IN THE REALM OF PERVERSITY. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY HELD THAT AT THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE SAID LAND, IT WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THIS. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO NOTED THAT THE AWARD PASSED BY THE DI STRICT COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION), WAS A DOCUMENT WHICH ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THUS, ON THE DATE OF PURCHASE, T HE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ON THE DATE OF ACQUISITION, THE CHARACTER OF THE LAND CONTINUED TO BE AGRICULTURAL. WHEN THESE TWO CLEAR FINDINGS HAVE BE EN RETURNED, IT IS APPARENT THAT IN THE TRANSITIONAL P ERIOD, THAT IS, BETWEEN PURCHASE AND ACQUISITION, THE NATURE AN D CHARACTER OF THE LAND DID NOT CHANGE. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE INTENDED TO USE THE LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PU RPOSES DID NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER THE NATURE AND CHARACTER O F THE LAND. THE FURTHER FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CA RRY OUT ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS DID NOT ALSO RESULT IN ANY CONVERSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO AN INDUSTR IAL LAND. IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT ANY OPERATIONS FOR SETTING UP ANY PLANT OR MACHINERY OR OF THE LIKE NATURE SO AS TO LEAD TO AN INFERENCE THAT THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE LAND HAD BEEN CHANGED FROM AGRICUL TURAL TO INDUSTRIAL. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS DID NOT ALTER THE NATUR E AND CHARACTER OF THE LAND. IN ANY EVENT, THIS DISCUSSIO N IS NOT RELEVANT IN THE BACKDROP OF THE CLEAR FINDING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT ON THE DATE OF THE PURCHASE AND AS AL SO ON THE DATE OF ACQUISITION, THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRIC ULTURAL LAND. HAVING COME TO SUCH A CONCLUSION, THE TRIBUNA L OUGHT NOT TO HAVE GONE INTO QUESTION OF INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DEFINITELY NOT INTO THE QUESTION OF INTENTION O F THE LAND 8 ITA.NO.729/HYD/2013 MR. M. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SECUNDERABAD. ACQUIRING AUTHORITY, THE LATTER BEING A WHOLLY IRRE LEVANT CONSIDERATION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LAND ACQ UIRED FROM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. 9. LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DE BBI ALMAO AND JOAQYAM ALMAO REPORTED IN 339 ITR 59 (BOM.) (HC ) WHICH ALSO CONSIDERED SIMILAR FACTS AND ACCEPTED THE CONT ENTION THAT NO CAPITAL GAINS ARISES ON THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND EVEN THOUGH PURCHASER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH AN INT ENTION OF SELLING IT FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. IN VIEW O F THE LEGAL PROPOSITION AS STATED ABOVE AND ALSO ON FACTS THAT ASSESSEES LAND WAS USED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IS AWAY FROM GHMC LIMITS BEYOND 8 KMS, THE SAID TRANSACTION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO TAXABLE CAPITAL GAINS. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO MERI T IN REVENUE GROUNDS AND ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.10.2014. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2014 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3), ROOM NO.413, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, HYDERABAD. 2. MR. M. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, 3-6-100/1, WEST MAREDPALLY, SECUNDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD 4. CIT-IV, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD.