RAJKUMAR KESARIMAL TATED, Nagpur V. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, Nagpur

SA 9/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3220 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR MILLIND BHUSARI
• Assessee Lawyers: S C THAKKAR; C J THAKKAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Application of stay
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR , BENCH , ( E - COURT), MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA , J M & SHRI D.KARUNAKAR A RAO , A M ITA NO. 3 15 / N AG / 20 1 2 & STAY APPN.NO. 09/NAG/2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 ) RAJKUMAR KESHRIMAL TATED, RESHAM OLI, BUDHWARI , NAGPUR - 440 002 VS. ACIT,CIR - 6, NAGPUR. PAN NO. : A AFPT 2544 P ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) AND ITA NO. 31 6 /NAG/2012 & STAY APPN. NO. 08/NA G/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 ) SMT. SAGEETADEVI RAJKUMAR TATED, RESHAM OLI, BUDHWARI, NAGPUR - 440 002 VS. AC IT,CIR - 6, NAGPUR. PAN NO. : AAEPT 9312 N ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : MR. C.J.THAKKAR & S.C.THAKKAR REVENUE BY : DR. MILLIND BHUSARI DATE OF HEARING : 15 TH MARCH., 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 3 /04/ 2013 O R D E R P ER BENCH : TH ESE ARE TWO APPEALS AND TWO STAY APPLICATIONS HA VE BEEN PREFERRED BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEE S BEFORE THE ITAT NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR, AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LEANED CIT(A) - I I , NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 , WHICH HA S BEEN HEARD THROUGH E - COURT, MUMBAI. \ 2 . SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THE CASES, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THESE CASES HAVE BEEN HEARD AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO S . 315 &316/ NAG/2012 & STAY APPN. NOS.09&08/N AG/2013 2 3 . IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE AFORESAID ASSESSEES HAV E RAISED GROUND AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN REGARD TO HOLDING THE LAND IN QUESTION SOLD BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES IS CAPITAL ASSET IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. 4 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE SE TWO ASSESSEE S SO LD THE LAND ON 21 - 8 - 2007 ADMEASURING 0.42 HECTARE & 0.82 HECTARE FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.30,63,000/ - & RS. 58,34,000/ - . B OTH THESE ASSESSEES ARE 50% SHAREHOLDER IN THE LAND HELD BY THEM. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT CAPITAL ASSET AS PER SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT AS THE DISTANCE OF THE LAND IS BEYOND 8 KMS. IN VIEW OF THE AO, THE LAND SITUATED WITHIN 8KM OF THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT. THEREFORE, HE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND BROUGHT T HE SALE CONSIDERATION TO TAX AND CAPITAL GAIN WAS CHARGED BY THE AO. 5 . IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) , THE ACTION OF THE AO HAS BEEN CONFIRMED . CIT(A) HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE DISTANCE HAS TO BE MEASURED ON STRAIGHT LINE METHOD AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF APPROA CH ROAD DISTANCE. NOW, THE ASSESSEE S ARE IN APPEAL S HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . LEARNED AR FILED DETAILED WRITTEN ARGUMENTS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS. 7 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR STRONGLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) . FUR THER, LEARNED DR REITERATED ITS ARGUMENTS AS ITA NO S . 315 &316/ NAG/2012 & STAY APPN. NOS.09&08/N AG/2013 3 ADVANCED IN CASE OF SANJAY NAGORAO PAIDLEWAR & NITISH RAMESHCHANDRA CHORDIA VS. ACIT, LISTED UNDER ITA NOS.112 & 113/NAG/2012 , WHICH WERE HEARD ON THE SAME DATE AS THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION AND CONSIDERED THEM CAREFULLY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FOUND THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS IN CASE OF SANJAY NAGORAO PAIDLEWAR & NITISH RAMESHCHANDRA CHORDIA VS. ACIT, LISTED UNDER ITA NOS.112 & 113/NAG/ 2012 AND THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF BY US VIDE ORDER DATED 22 - 03 - 201 3 . THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AT GREAT LENGTH AND FOUND THAT THIS IS SQUARELY COVERED BY VARIOUS HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRI BUNAL HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN PARA 9 TO 21 , WHICH ARE AS UNDER : - 9 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERED THEM CAREFULLY. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF BOTH THE PARTIES I.E. ASSESSEES AND DEPARTMENT AND HAVE AL SO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, ON WHICH OUR ATTENTIONS WERE DRAWN. WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AR AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT DR . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE ISSUE IN RESPECT TO WHETHER THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUESTION IS AN ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OR NOT, HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SATINDER PAL SINGH(SUPR A) . THIS DECISION OF THE HON BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. ONE OF US HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE WHILE SITTING IN JAIPUR BENCHES OF THE TR IBUNAL AND FOUND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED AND THE DISTANCE HAS TO MEASURED THROUGH APPROACH ROAD AND NOT THROUGH THE CROWS FLIGHT DISTANCE. THE HON BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S ATINDER PAL SINGH (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE DISTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14)(III) (B) HAS TO BE MEASURED IN TERMS OF APPROACH ROAD AND NOT BY A STRAIGHT LINE DISTANCE ON HORIZONTAL PLANE OR AS PER ITA NO S . 315 &316/ NAG/2012 & STAY APPN. NOS.09&08/N AG/2013 4 CR OWS FLIGHT. COPY OF THE ORDER IS ALSO PLACED IN THE COMPILATION AT PAGES 1 & 2 . 10 . THE CONTENTION RAISED BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE RECKONING OF URBANIZATION AS A FACTOR FOR PRESCRIBING THE DISTANCE IS OF SIGNIFICANCE WHICH WOULD YIELD TO THE PRINCIPLE OF MEASURING DISTANCE IN TERMS OF APPROACH ROAD RATHER THAN BY STRAIGHT LINE ON HORIZONTAL PLANE, THIS CONTENTION OF LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HON BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND HAS OBSERVED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE IS CONSIDERED AS STRAIGHT LINE DISTANCE ON HORIZONTAL PLANE OR AS PER CROWS FLIGHT THEN IT WOULD HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF KEEPING IN VIEW THE EXTENT OF URBANIZATION. SUCH A COURSE WOULD BE ILLUSORY, WHICH IS IN PURSU ANCE OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION THAT NOTIFICATION NO. 9447 DATED. 6 TH JANUARY, 1994 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. IN RESPECT OF THE STATE OF PUNJAB, AT ITEM NO. 18, THE SUB - DIVISION KHANNA HAS BEEN LISTED AT SERIAL NO. 19. IT HAS INTER ALIA BEEN SPECIFIED THAT AREA UPTO 2 KMS. FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS IN ALL DIRECTIONS HAS TO BE REGARDED AS OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL LAND. ONCE THE STATOR GUIDANCE OF TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EXTENT AND SCOPE OF URBANIZATION OF THE AREA HAS TO BE RECKONED WHILE ISSUIN G ANY SUCH NOTIFICATION THEN IT WOULD BE INCONGRUOUS TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DISTANCE OF LAND SHOULD BE MEASURED BY THE METHOD OF STRAIGHT LINE ON HORIZONTAL PLANE OR AS PER CROWS FLIGHT BECAUSE ANY MEASUREMENT BY CROWS FLIGHT IS BOUND TO IGNORE THE URBANIZATION WHICH HAS TAKEN PLACE. THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF LAUKIK DEVELOPERS VS DCIT, REPORTED IN (2007) 108 TTJ (MUMBAI) 364 , WAS ALSO TA KEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE HO NBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND FOUND THA T THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. 1 1 . IN CASE OF LAUKIK DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) , THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT ONCE THE PRINCIPLE OF MEASURING DISTANCE HAS BEEN SETTLED NAMELY THAT THE DISTANCE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE - RESPONDENT HAS TO BE MEASURED IN TERMS OF BY APPROACH ROAD AND NOT BY A STRAIGHT LINE DISTANCE ON HORIZONTAL PLANE OR AS PER CROWS FLIGHT. ACCORDINGLY, THE HON BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE DISTANCE HAS TO BE ME ASURED BY APPROACH ROAD AN D NOT BY STRAIGHT LINE DISTANCE ON HORIZONTAL PLANE OR AS PER CROWS FLIGHT. IN CASE OF LAUKIK DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) , THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THAT THE DISTANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IB(10) HAS TO BE MEASURED THROUGH STRAIGHT LIN E DISTANCE ON HORIZONTAL PLANE AND NOT BY APPROACH ROAD. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING DISTANCE TO BE MEASURED WITH REGARD TO ROAD DIS TANCE OR A STRAIGHT LINE DISTANCE IS COVERED WITH THE DECISION OF THE PUNE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF MANGALAM INORGANICS (P) LTD (SUPRA) , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS AND ASSESSEES INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING HAS TO BE MEASURED HAVING REGARD TO THE RO A D DISTANCE AND NOT AS PER THE CROWS FLIGHT I.E., A STRAI GHT - LINE DISTANCE AS CANVASSED BY THE REVENUE. 1 2 . IN CASE OF ITO VS. ASHOK SHUKLA, DECIDED IN ITA NO. 207/ INDORE/2012 , FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 , VIDE ORDER ITA NO S . 315 &316/ NAG/2012 & STAY APPN. NOS.09&08/N AG/2013 5 DATED 31 - 8 - 2012, THE ISSUE WAS IN RESPECT TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FR OM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THIS ISSUE WAS EXAMINED IN DETAIL AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE TEHSILDAR AND PATWARI HAVE GIVEN A REPORT THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE DISTANCE IS 9.7 KMS FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT. THIS D ISTANCE WAS THROUGH THE APPROACH ROAD AND NOT BY STRAIGHT LINE DISTANCE METHOD. THEREAFTER DISCUSSING THE ISSUE ON MERIT AND HAVING TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LAUKIK DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) AND CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BALKRISHNA HARIBALLABHADAS VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 138 ITR 245 , WHICH WAS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DR AND FOUND THAT THE MEASUREMENT HAS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE APPROACH ROAD AND NOT BY STRAIGHT LINE METHOD. RE LIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SATINDER PAL SINGH (SUPRA) . 1 3 . IN CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S SHAGUN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., DECIDED IN ITA NO. 209/NAG/2009 , FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, VIDE O RDER DATED 27 - 6 - 2011, THE NAGPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WHICH WAS SITUATED MORE THAN 8 KMS. FROM THE LOCAL MUNICIPAL LIMIT AND IS CLEARLY AGRICULTURAL LAND IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT,, THEREFORE, ANY INCOME FROM SUCH LAND INCLUDING PROFIT ARISING FROM SALE OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT ASSESSABLE AS INCOME. 1 4 . IN CASE OF ACIT VS. GAURAV KHANDELWAL , DECIDED IN ITA NO. 195/AGRA/2010 , FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, THE AGRA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH IN CASE OF LAUKIK DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF HON BLE PUNJAB AND HAR YANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SATINDER PAL SINGH (SUPRA) , HE LD THAT THE DISTANCE OF 8KMS HAS TO BE MEASURED BY APPROACH ROAD DISTANCE AND NOT BY STRAI GHT LINE DISTANCE ON HORIZONTAL PLANE. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED IN CASE OF SHRI MA I NRAJ VS. ACIT , DECIDED IN ITA NO. 1371/M D S /2011 , FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 VIDE ORDER DATED 18 - 8 - 2011. IN THIS CASE ALSO IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE DISTANCE HAS TO BE MEASURED BY APPROACH ROAD AND NOT THROUGH CROWS FLIGHT OR STRAIGHT LINE METHOD. IN CASE OF SMT. SAVITHRI AMMAL VS. ITO , DECIDED IN ITA NO.487/M D S /201 2 , VIDE ORDER DATED 12 - 7 - 2012 AGAIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE DISTANCE HAS TO BE MEASURED AS PER THE APP ROACH ROAD AND NOT BY STRAIGHT LINE METHOD. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED IN CASE OF ITO VS. SHRI CHAGANLAL LAL JI ASWIN BUSINESS , DECIDED IN ITA NO. 857/M D S /2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 , VIDE ORDER DATED 18 - 2 - 2011 . IN CASE OF ITO VS. M/S RANJIT R ATTAN MEHRA (HUF), DECIDED IN ITA NO. 442/ASR/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 , THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE DISTANCE OF 8 KMS HAS TO BE MEASURED THROUGH THE APPROACH ROAD AND NOT THROUGH THE STRAIGHT LINE METHOD. WHILE HOLDI NG SO, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SATINDER PAL SINGH (SUPRA) , WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND ANOTHER DECISION O F THE SAME HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. LAL SINGH & OTHERS, REPORTED IN (2010) 228 CTR 575 WAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND HAS ALLOWED ITA NO S . 315 &316/ NAG/2012 & STAY APPN. NOS.09&08/N AG/2013 6 THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE DISTANCE OF 8KM HAS TO BE MEASURED THROUGH APPROACH ROAD AND NOT BY STRAIGHT LINE METHOD ON HORIZONTAL PLANE. 1 5 . WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION VARI OUS ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED CIT DR AND FOUND THAT SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL BY HON BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE CONSISTENCY THE VIEW TAKEN BY VARIOUS BENCHES HAS T O BE FOLLOWED. THERE IS NO CONTRARY DECISION IS AVAILABLE ON THE SAME FACTS AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS ONLY PERSUASIVE VALUE. IF THERE IS ANY CONTRARY DECISION IS AVAILABLE EITHER B Y THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OR BY ANY OTHER BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEN OF COURSE IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE DECISION OF OTHER BENCHES HA VE PERSUASIVE VALUE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HELD THAT DISTANCE OF 8 KMS. HAS TO B E MEASURED THROUGH APPROACH ROAD AND NOT BY STRAIGHT LINE DISTANCE ON HORIZONTAL PLANE OR CROWS FLIGHT. HENCE, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES. 1 6 . REGARDING THE ISSUE IN REGARD TO WHETHER THE SALE CONSIDERATION OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOM E IS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME OR NOT, ONCE WE HAVE HELD THAT THIS WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND, THEREFORE, ANY CONSIDERATION OUT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH IS NOT ASSESSABLE AS THE LAND WAS SITUATED BEYOND 8 KMS., THEREFORE, THE DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE SURPLUS MAY BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME , HAS BECOME NOW MEANINGLESS. E VEN AND OTHERWISE, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO DECIDED BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THOUGH LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON T HE DECISION OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF GOPAL RAMNARAYAN KASAT, REPORTED IN 9 TAXMAN.COM 236 (BOM) , HOWEVER, IN A LATEST DECISION THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. DEBBIE ALEMAO, REPORTED IN (2011) 331 ITR 59 , HAS HE LD THAT THE LAND WHICH WAS SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE REVENUE RECORDS AND NEVER SOUGHT TO BE USED FOR NON - AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE S BY THE ASSESSEE TILL IT WAS SOLD HAS TO BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND, EVEN THOUGH NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THIS LAND AND, THEREFORE, NO CAPITAL GAIN WAS TAXABLE ON THE SALE OF THE SAID LAND. 1 7 . FACTS IN THE CASE IN HAND ARE SIMILAR. THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE REVENUE RECORD. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME OR NOT , IS NOT THE MOOT QUESTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE, HOWEVER, THE IMPORTANT FACTOR IS TO BE DECIDED AS TO WHETHER THE CHARACTER OF THE LAND IS AGRICULTURE OR NOT. UNDISPUTEDLY , IN THE REVENUE RECORD AND AS PER THE PATWARI CERTIFICATE, THE LAND IN Q UESTION IS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THEREFORE, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS NOT TAXABLE ON THE SALE OF SAID LAND I.E. EITHER ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN OR ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS INCOME. 1 8 . EVEN WE FOUND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DLF UNITED LIMITED , 217 ITR 337 . THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF DLF UNITED LIMITED (SUPRA) WERE THAT THE DLF LIMITED PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM VARIOUS FARMERS IN THE EAR ITA NO S . 315 &316/ NAG/2012 & STAY APPN. NOS.09&08/N AG/2013 7 AND SHOWN E XEMPTION, HOWEVER, THE AO TREATED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS REVENUE RECEIPT. UPTO THE STAGE OF TRIBUNAL, THE ORDER OF AO WAS CONFIRMED, HOWEVER, THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE, ANY RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT TAXABLE. THIS DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT, WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EVEN AND OTHERWISE WE SEE NO MERIT IN THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF DELAY AS WELL AS ON MERITS. COP IES OF THESE ORDERS ARE PLACED IN THE COMPILATION. 1 9 . THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED IN VARIOUS OTHER DECISION I.E. IN CASE OF HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LIMITED VS. ACI T, REPORTED IN 335 ITR 77 , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE BY THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION, THE LAND WAS CLEARLY AGRICULTURAL LAND IR RESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE INTENDED TO USE THE LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES AND DI D NOT CARRY OUT ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND, THEREFORE, NO CAPITAL GAINS COULD BE CHARGED ON ACQUISITION THEREOF UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. WHILE HOLDING SO, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DLF UNITED LIMITED (SUPRA) , WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE H O N BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. 20 . IN CASE OF SHRI SATYANARAYAN O. AGRAWAL VS. ADCIT, DECIDED IN ITA NO. 169/NAG/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, SIMILAR VIEW ALSO WAS TAKEN FOLLOWING THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND ULTIMATELY IT WAS HELD THAT THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OUT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS NOT TAXABLE. 2 1 . SINCE THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY VARIOUS B ENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE H ON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DLF UNITED LIMITED (SUPRA) , WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT, THEREFORE, WE H O LD THAT ANY CONSIDERATION RECEI VED OUT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, CANNOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS INCOME, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND I N FAVOUR OF ALL THE ASSESSEES. 9 . SINCE THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR, THEREFORE, ON THE SAME REASONING, WE ALLOW THE I SSUES IN FAVOUR OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE S IN THESE APPEALS . 10 . AS WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES, THEREFORE, THE STAY APPLICATION S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. ITA NO S . 315 &316/ NAG/2012 & STAY APPN. NOS.09&08/N AG/2013 8 11 . RESULTANTLY, APPEAL S OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE S ARE ALLOWED AND STAY APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF APR. 2013. SD/ - SD/ - (D.KARUNAKAR A RAO) (R.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 0 3 / 04 / 2013 . PKM , PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) ,NAGPUR . 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI /NAGPUR 6. GUAR D FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI