Pamella Garg, Sangrur V. ITO, Sangrur

ITA 990/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 99021514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY SHARMA
• Keywords: Capital asset

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: CHANDIGARH BENCH B BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, AM ITA NO. 990/CHANDI/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PAMELLA GARG D/O V I.T.O. WARD 1, SANGRUR SH. BALDEV KRISHAN SANGRUR PAN: AAECPG 2743 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AJAY SHARMA DATE OF HEARING: 27.9.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 .9.2011 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005- 06, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), PA TIALA DATED 13.4.2010 U/S 250 (6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT (IN SHORT THE AC T). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WORT HY LD. CIT(A), PATIALA IS UNJUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ORD ER OF THE LD. ITO WARD -1, SANGRUR. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UNSUSTAINA BLE IN LAW. 2 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WORT HY LD. CIT(A), PATIALA IS UNJUSTIFIED AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD AT VILLAGE KHERI IS A CAPITA L ASSET AND WHEREAS THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD AT VILLAGE KHERI IS NOT AN CAPITAL ASSET, THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS. 181951/- SUSTAINED BY WORTHY LD. CIT(A) IS UNCALLED FOR AND DESERVES TO DELETED. 3 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WORT HY LD. CIT(A), PATIALA IS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW TO HOLD THE AGRICULTU RAL LAND IS A COMMERCIAL ASSET WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE TRUE FAC TS OF THE CASE AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. ITA NO. 990/CHANDI/2010 PAMELLA GARG V. ITO 2 3. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE BENCH, THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNE D AGRICULTURAL LAND DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF CAPITAL ASSET A S CONTEMPLATED U/S 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT. HE CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUG NED VILLAGE IS GOVERNED BY PANCHAYAT AND HENCE IT IS NOT A MUNICIPAL CORPOR ATION. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT LOGICALLY TENABLE. 4. THE DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY CONTENDE D THAT THERE WAS A NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND A S PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE IMPUGNED LAND SQUARELY FALLS UNDER THE CAPITAL ASSET. THEREFORE THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) ARE VALID. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS ALSO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. IT IS A CLEAR CASE WHERE TH E IMPUGNED ASSET FALLS U/S 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 2(14)(III):- (III) AGRICULTURAL LAND IN INDIA, NOT BEING LAND SITUATE (A) IN ANY AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURI SDICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY, MUNI CIPAL CORPORATION, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN AREA COM MITTEE, TOWN COMMITTEE, OR BY ANY OTHER NAME) OR A CANTONMENT BO ARD AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF NOT LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND ACCO RDING 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 MO RE THAN EIGHT KILOMETERS, FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALI TY OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN ITEM (A), AS THE CENTRAL GOVER NMENT MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF, AND SCOPE FOR, URBA NIZATION OF THAT AREA AND OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE. ITA NO. 990/CHANDI/2010 PAMELLA GARG V. ITO 3 6. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER WITH A VIEW TO APPRECIATING THE SAME:- 3.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WE LL THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELL ANT AND FINDS THAT THE DISTANCE OF VILLAGE KHERI IS 2.3 KM FROM THE JU RISDICTION OF SANGRUR MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND AS PER NOTIFICATION , SANGRUR. AREA UPTO A DISTANCE OF 5 KM FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIM ITS IN ALL DIRECTIONS. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LAND SOLD FA LLS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) OF INCOME-TAX A CT HENCE THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SALE O F SAID LAND IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION RAISE D BY THE APPELLANTSS COUNSEL FINDS NO FORCE. 3.4 GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 6.1 THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED VILLAG E IS GOVERNED BY A PANCHAYAT AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS MUNICIP ALITY. SUCH CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS MIS-PLACED. THE IMPU GNED AGRICULTURAL LAND IS COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2 (14)(III)(B) OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S 2(14)(III)(A) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, T HE CONCEPT OF PANCHAYAT AND THE POPULATION ARE IRRELEVANT IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE DEFINITION. THE IMPUGNED LAND SQUARELY FALLS WITHIN THE NOTIFICATIO N ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE LEGAL AND F ACTUAL DISCUSSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE THE SAME ARE UPHELD. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 .9.2011 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNANT MEMBER CHANDIGARH, THE 29 .9.2011 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE CIT(A) / THE DR ITA NO. 990/CHANDI/2010 PAMELLA GARG V. ITO 4