TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals and cross objections pertain to different assessee, therefore, these are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. The following common grounds are raised by the department in ITA Nos.227 & 228/PNJ/2013 for the A.Y 2007-08:- 1. The ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (AAppeal), Panaji's order is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The ld.CIT(A erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee and enhanced the rate of land to Rs. 17/- wherein, the AO adopted fair value of Rs. 11/- per sq. mtr for undeveloped big area for the year 1981 for calculation of indexed cost after ascertaining the average cost from the Sub-Registrar. 3. The ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that, the AO has adopted the value after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is opposed to the law and facts of the case and is therefore liable to be quashed. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding the property transferred by the Respondent as a capital asset liable for Capital Gains Tax although it is an agricultural land which does not come within the limits prescribed in provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a) and 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax 1961. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer, arbitrarily and without any basis held that the transferred land in question is situated within 8 Kms Of Municipal limit of Panaji which is factually incorrect and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of Income Tax (Appeals). The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be modified accordingly. 8. The respondent craves leave to modify, add and delete any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of these cross objections. 5. Common short facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income under Section 5A of the I.T Act, 1961. Both assessee and his wife are covered under Section 5A of the I.T Act 1961. However, the AO found that the assessee has sold out a part of the landed property in four parcels of land bearing survey no.32/0,33/0 and 34/0 admeasuring 2,18,867 sq.mtr to M/s. RPA Promoters & Builders Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Trinity Land Base Pvt. Ltd on a sale consideration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee's property is situated at village Govalim and nearest municipality is Panjim Municipality. The distance from CCP boundary via Merces to Batim to Moula village is 14.7 kms. (approx) and CCP boundary to Moula via Merces,Curca is about 11.4 kms. As per Censor Certificate the population of the village is 441 only. Therefore, the population is less than 10,000 the prescribed limits. The distance between the municipality and the village is more than 8 kms. Therefore, this land should be treated as agricultural land. If this land is treated as agricultural land, the assessee is not liable for any capital gains tax. 9. The ld.DR has objected to it and submitted that the assessee has submitted the evidence of recent censor certificate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these documentary evidences by the AO. The AO should ascertain all the facts from the concerned authority. He is directed to decide this plea of the assessee whether it is an agricultural land or not after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This issue of assessee's cross object in is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA Nos.227 & 228/PNJ/2013 (by the department) 12. During the course of hearing before us the ld.DR has submitted that the departmental appeals are covered by the decision of the joint owner of the property, wherein the tribunal in ITA Nos.222-223/PNJ/2013 & CO Nos.42-43/PNJ/2013 for the A.Y 2007-08 vide order dated 25/10/2013 on identical issue has dismissed the departmental appeals and that of the cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no land was sold in the said village in 1981 and therefore, no comparative instances relating to the same village were available but on the basis of the surrounding village, nature of the land and keeping in the area of the land, the Inspector of Income Tax has worked out the average Fair Market Value of the impugned land at Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. The AO without bringing any evidence on record has simply rejected the Fair Market Value as determined by the Inspector and adopted the Fair Market Value at Rs. 3.75 per sq.mtr. The Sub-Registrar has also cited instances from the surrounding villages where the rate varies from Rs. 0.96 to Rs. 70/- per sq. mtr. No doubt, in the case of the brother of the Assessee, the other inspector has worked out ....