TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 1077
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of assessee was fully explained and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 22,68,510/- made by the AO on account of income from undisclosed sources? (B) Whether in the circumstances, and the facts of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in reversing the action of the AO in adopting sale consideration of the land in question at Rs. 5,03,51,250/- as against Rs. 34,57,750/- claimed by the assessee and thereby arriving at a Short Term Capital gain of Rs. 18,70,749/- and Long Term Capital gain of Rs. 4,56,83,750/-?" 2. That a search action under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was carried out in one M/s. Radhe Group by issuing warrants of authorisation on 4/8/2006. During the course of the se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... land in favour of a non-agriculturist and therefore, the land which was sold was a capital asset its transfer is chargeable to tax under capital gain. 2.1 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) vide order dtd. 23/4/2010 allowed the said appeal of the assessee deleting addition of Rs. 22,68,510/-made by the AO on account of income from undisclosed sources and also deleted the addition of Rs. 18,70,749/- on account of long term capital gain, and also deleted addition of Rs. 4,56,83,750/- on account of short term capital gain. The CIT(A) has specifically held that since the land sold in question was agricultural land, outside the purview of definiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ital gain of Rs. 18,70,749/- and Long Term Capital gain of Rs. 4,56,83,750/-?" 2.4 Heard Mr. Pranav Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue. So far as the proposed question of law No. (A) is concerned, it is not in dispute that the same is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Rajshibhai Meramanbhai Odedara [2013] 217 Taxman 15/35 taxmann.com 603, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of the very assessee but with respect to another Assessment Year has considered and answered the issue in favour of the very assessee. Therefore, present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed so far as proposed question No.(A) is concerned. 2.5 Now, so far as the proposed question No. (B) is conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the AO, no documentary or other evidences were produced by the assessee to show that the land in question was agricultural land and/or he was carrying on any agricultural activities. It is submitted that, therefore, the Tribunal has materially erred in holding the land which was sold in favour of M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. as agricultural land and in any case not treating the same as capital asset. 3. Heard Mr. Desai learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue on the proposed questions of law. 3.1 Short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is, whether the learned Tribunal has committed any error and/or illegality in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) treating the land in question wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in breach of law prevailing in the State, it would lose its character as agricultural land and would be treated as non-agricultural land. 3.3 At this stage, definition of capital asset as provided under section 2(14) of the Act is required to be referred to. As per section 2(14) of the Act "capital asset" means property of any kind held by an assessee whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include.....(3) agricultural land in India which is situated in an area within such distance not being more than 8 Kms from local limits of any Municipality or Cantonment Board. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the ITAT has committed any error in holding the land in q....