NETRANANDA NAYAK,PURI V. ITO, PURI WARD, PURI

ITA 274/CTK/2023

AI Insights

Netrananda Nayak, an agriculturist, appealed against the order of the CIT(A), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,03,68,480 as Long Term Capital Gain on the compulsory acquisition of his agricultural land by the Government of Odisha for the Samuka Water Project. The primary contention was that the land, being rural and used for agricultural purposes, should not be considered a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the compensation received was exempt under Section 10(37). The Assessing Officer initially treated the land as a capital asset based on a report that the land had not been used for agriculture for the last ten years, which was contested by Nayak based on evidence of prior agricultural use. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision but allowed the cost of acquisition and indexation in computing long-term capital gains. The Tribunal's decision hinged on verifying the land's classification and its distance from municipal limits, as per the notification dated 6.1.1994.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473625 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Dr. Subha Tripathi vs. ITA No. 1129/JP/2011, Khetilal Sharma HUF vs. ITA No.103/JP/2012, Pr. CIT vs Khetilal Sharma (HUF) in D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.170/2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.C.MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: NIRANJAN PANDA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 13; 2(14)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL Netrananda Nayak, At: Khandiabandha, PO: Gopinathpur, Atharnala, Puri PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 2/10186/2019-20 2. Shri Niranjan S.C.Mohanty, Sr. 3. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Netrananda Nayak, At: Khandiabandha, PO: Gopinathpur, Atharnala, Puri Vs. Income Tax Officer, Puri Word, Puri. No.AJSPN 1567 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Niranjan Panda, CA Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 27/01/20 Date of Pronouncement : 27/01/20 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 30.6.2023 in Appeal No. CIT(A),Bhubaneswar 20 for the assessment year 2013-14. Niranjan Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri , Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under: P a g e 1 | 18 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Puri Respondent) Niranjan Panda, CA : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR 2025 025 appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld 30.6.2023 in Appeal No. CIT(A),Bhubaneswar- the assessee and Shri ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 2 | 18 “ 1. For that the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeal) NFAC U/s,250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is not just and correct on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. For that the learned CIT (Appeal) NFAC is grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,03,68.4801 as Long Term Capital Gain, on compulsory acquisition of land by Govt of Odisha, ignoring the fact that the said land was rural agricultural land situated beyond two kilometers from the Municipal jurisdiction, thus is not a capital asset as defined U/S-2(14) (iii) (a) & (b) of the I.T.Act 1961. 3. For that even otherwise without prejudice to the grounds taken above, learned CIT (Appeal) NFAC is grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,03,68.4801- towards Long Term Capital Gain ignoring the fact that the said amount was received as compensation from Govt of Odisha on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land used for agricultural purpose which was exempted U/s- 10(37) of the I,T.Act 1961. 4. For that even otherwise the learned CIT (Appeal) NFAC is grossly erred in dwelling upon some inapplicable & in appropriate judicial pronouncements for drawing the conclusion that the compensation from Govt of Odisha on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land used for agricultural purpose as taxable Long Term Capital Gain. 5. For that the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeal) NFAC confirming the addition made by learned AO, is bad in law and liable to be quashed on the above grounds or such other grounds if any to be urged at the time of hearing on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.” 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is an agriculturist. The assessee owns substantial land near Puri. Nearly 8.20 acres of assessee’s agricultural land had been acquired by the Government of Odisha for the creation of Samuka Water Project. The assessee had received compensation of Rs.2.03 crores. The assessee had not filed his return of income. Notice u/s.148 of the Act came to be issued on the assessee to which, the assessee filed his return of income and also disclosed the ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 3 | 18 compensation received and also had claimed the same as exempt as the lands acquired were agricultural land and not capital asset. The Assessing officer on the ground that the Revenue Inspector has reported that since last 10 years, the agricultural operation had not been carried out on the said plots and the said plots are lying full of water, held that the compensation received by the assessee was in respect of capital asset liable for long term capital gains. However, the Assessing Officer did not grant the assessee the cost of acquisition nor the indexation while computing the long term capital gains. 5. On appeal before the ld CIT(A), the ld CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer treating the acquired land as capital asset and compensation liable for taxation as long term capital gains. Ld CIT(A), however, gave the assessee benefit of cost of acquisition and indexation in the computation of long term capital gains. 6. It was submitted by ld AR before us that the lands acquired were originally agricultural land on which agricultural operation had also been done. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer was carried away by the recording in the land revenue records showing the land as ‘PATITA’. It was the submission that that the lands were originally agricultural land on which PADDY was being grown and were ‘SARADA’. It was only after the acquisition and setting off of Samuka Project, the revenue records had been modified to show the nature of land as ‘ PATITA’. It was the submission ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 4 | 18 that as the lands were acquired from the assessee as agricultural land on which agricultural operation were being done, the compensation received by the assessee was liable to be agricultural income and consequently exempt. 7. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the nature of land clearly showed that the lands were not agricultural land. Consequent to the submissions of ld AR and ld Sr DR, a remand report had been called for from the Assessing Officer. The remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer reads as follows: ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 5 | 18 ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 6 | 18 8. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer has referred to the statements recorded from the Sarapanch. In the remand report also, the Assessing Officer has reproduced the details of crops cultivated and details of land from the Tahasildar, Puri which is as follows: ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 7 | 18 “ ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 8 | 18 ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 9 | 18 ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 10 | 18 ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 11 | 18 9. After receipt of the remand report, it was submitted by ld Sr DR that Khata and Plot Nos. in respect of the lands mentioned in the Tahasildar Report were different from that mentioned in the page 3 of the assessment order relating to the land of the assessee 10. A perusal of the Tahasildar report at page 2 shows in respect of same land kisam as the same shown as per original records as “SARADA-II’ and subsequently it has been marked as “PATITA”. Thus, the nature of the lands admittedly clearly as per the Tahasildar Report during the relevant point of time that the lands were acquired as Sarada only. . Further in the report, it is observed that paddy crop was grown in the said land upto F.Y. 2007-08. The initial order of acquisition was in 2009 thus within two years ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 12 | 18 prior to acquisition, the land was used for agricultural purpose. The question now arises only as to whether the Khata and Plot numbers as mentioned by the Tahasildar in his report is the same and related to the land in question of the assessee as mentioned in the assessment order and same needs verification. In regard to this, as no clarity is available now for the purpose of verification as to whether the plot and Khata numbers mentioned in the Tahasildar report as extracted above is the same as that mentioned in the assessment order and to verify whether these are new particulars and subsequent to the old particulars, the issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination. If after verification, the khata No. and plots numbers are same in respect of same lands, the compensation received by the assessee is liable to be treated as exempt as agricultural income only. 11. Ld Sr DR has raised an issue that the lands are within 2 kms from the Puri Muncipality. A perusal of the order of ld CIT(A) at page 12 shows that the ld CIT(A) has taken into consideration that the lands were within 2 kms distance to support his stand that the lands sold were capital assets liable for taxation as long term capital gains. However, a perusal of page 42 of PB which is a certificate issued by the Amin shows as follows: ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 13 | 18 “ 12. Therefore, the dispute is with regard to the distance from the Muncipality limits to the subject land. As per the Notification No.SO.9447 File No.164/3/87-ITA.I)] dated 6.1.1994, the land is to be treated as capital asset if the same is situated in area upto the distance of 2 kms from the ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 14 | 18 Muncipality limit in all directions of Puri for the purpose of section 2(14)(sub-clause(iii). The notification of the Central Government was mandatory to bring the land in the definition of capital asset which is not located within the limits of the Municipality but located within the distance of 2 kms from the local limits. So far, the agricultural land which is located in the limits of Municipal Limits, same will be treated as capital asset and no further requirement is to be examined. Since the land in question is located outside the local limits of Puri Municipality, therefore, in order to determine whether the land in question falls under the mischief of sub- clause (b) of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, the distance of 2 kms has to be taken into account in terms of notification dated 6-01-1994. Further, in the said notification dated 6-01-1994, the explanation defines the Municipal Limits which is to be the limits as existed on the date on which the notification is published in the Official Gazette. The Explanation 2 of the notification is reproduced as under:- ‘’(2) The reference to the municipal limits or the limit of Cantonment Board in the Schedule to this notification is to the limits as existing on the date on which on which the notification is published in the official gazette.’’ 13. The revenue has contended that the distance of 2 kms should be considered from the limits of municipality of Puri as existed as on the date of acquisition of the land and not from the limits of Puri Muncipality as existed as on Notification dated 6.1.1994. However, from the perusal of the Explanation 2 to Notification dated 6.1.1994, it is in categorical terms the ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 15 | 18 Board has clarified that the municipality limits is to be considered as existeed on the date of notification published in the Official Gazettee i.e. on 6.1.1994. There is no amendment or withdrawal of the said notification other than the amendment made by the Finance Act 2013, where the requirement of said notification has been dispensed with for invocation of sub-clause (b) of clause (iii) of Section 2(14) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2014. Accordingy, we hold that the land in question which is located beyond 2 kms from the municipality limit of Puri as on 6.1.1994 i.e the date when the notification was published in the official gazette, the same would fall under the exclusion clause of the term ‘capital asset’ as per provisions of 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act.. 14. This view is supported by the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Dr. Subha Tripathi in ITA No. 1129/JP/2011 Assessment year : 2008-09 order dated 24.5.2023. Further, the decision in the case of Subha Tripathi is followed by the Co-ordinate bench of Jaipur ITAT in the case of Khetilal Sharma HUF in ITA No.103/JP/2012, which order stood confirmed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Khetilal Sharma (HUF) in D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.170/2016 order dated 21.11.2017, wherein, it has been held as under: “5. Counsel for the appellant contended that tribunal has committed serious error in following the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Subha Tripathi in ITA No.1129/JP/2011 for assessment ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 16 | 18 year 2008-09 dt. 24.5.2013. 6. However while considering the matter, tribunal has observed as under: 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee sold the agricultural land on 30/4/2005 at village Sarangpura measuring 3.33 hectare (9.32 Bigha) for Rs. 2,76,80,400/-. The ld Assessing Officer has confirmed from the Nagar Nigam that the land transaction is within 8 km or not. The Nagar Nigam, Jaipur vide his letter No. 315 dated 13/12/2010 has given the distance between the khasra sold by the assessee and municipal limit as 4.9 km only. It is not clear from the order of the al and CIT(A) that what was the municipal limit and whether this was with reference to land transaction dated 30/4/2005. The main dispute between the assessee and the revenue is that this limit is to be calculated from the date of notification by the Central Govt. or on the basis of change of municipal limit from time to time. This issue has been considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Subha Tripathi in ITA No. 1129/JP/2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 24/5/2013. The operative portion of the order has been reproduced in the reply of the assessee. It has been held by the Coordinate Bench that there is no dispute that the Jaipur Municipality has been duly notified vide said notification dated 06/1/1994 and as on the date of said notification, the land in question was beyond 8 km from the municipal limit exist on that point of time. In the case of assessee, on the date of this notification dated 6th January, 1994, the municipal limit of Jaipur on Ajmer Road on which the assessee land is situated was up to ESI hospital. The ld AR placed the evidence in paper book at sl. no. 91. The assessee’s land is 16 km away from the ESI hospital. These facts has not been controverted by the ld DR. Being a precedence, we respectfully following the order of the Coordinate Bench and held that land sold by the assessee is not a capital asset U/s 2(14) of the Act. Thus, capital gain does not arise. On this ground, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 7. In our considered opinion, the distance of 16 km. was not disputed before the tribunal, therefore, it is an agricultural land. 8. In that view of the matter, issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.” ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 17 | 18 15. In the instant case, the Amin report clearly shows the distance in km from border line of Muncipality beyond 2 kms distance. The reasons for difference between the order of the ld CIT(A) and that of the Assessing Officer seems to be on account of distance being measured by the starting of the plot as adopted by the ld CIT(A) and as per the Amin report, it is from the end of the border line of Muncipality area. 16. This being so, in the interest of justice, the Assessing Officer is directed to have same distance measured from the land to the border of the Puri Muncipality as is existed on 6.1.1994. If the distance is beyond 2 kms then the compensation received is liable to be treated as agricultural income only. Should either of the conditions being the distance of the land from the border of the Muncipality area and Khata and Plot numbers not tallied, the compensation received would automatically liable to be taxed under the long term capital gains. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 27/01/2025. SD/- SD/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.274/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 18 | 18 Cuttack; Dated 27/01/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, CUTTACK 1. The Appellant : Netrananda Nayak, At: Khandiabandha, PO: Gopinathpur, Atharnala 2. The respondent: Income Tax Officer, Puri Word, Puri. 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar-2 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "