2017 (11) TMI 1651

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....39;BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS For the Appellant : Mr. Daksh Pareek for Mr. Sameer Jain For the Respondent : Mr. Gunjan Pathak for Ms. Ishita Rawat JUDGMENT 1. In both these appeals common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. This court while admitting the appeals framed following substantial question of law:- 3.1 Appeal No.170/2016 admitted on 9.11.2016 "1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 2.75 crore ignoring the finding of fact mentioned in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the assessee had sold land on 30/4/2015 at village Sarangpura, khasra No. 399, 400, 403, 407, 409 and 149 total 2.33 hectare for Rs. 2,76,80,400/-. 4.1 The ld Assessing Officer found that the land sold was within the distance of 8 km from the municipal limit and the same has also been confirmed from the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. In reply thereto, the Tehsildar, Nagar Nigam, Jaipur vide his letter No. 351 dated 13/12/2010 has given the distance between khasra sold by the assessee and the municipal limit as 4.9 KM only. It is further noticed by him that the land was held for more than 03 years as per land record furnished by the assessee's AR and belonging to HUF. No documentary evidence of the cost of acquisition has been furnished. As per th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... can also be not treated to be the investment qualifying for the deduction U/s 54B as the investment has been made in the individual name instead of the HUF capacity. He further held that the assessee had claimed construction done on the properties situated at village-Sarangpura and in support of this, the assessee had furnished copy of valuation report from the authorized valuer. The report furnished reveals that:- i. The investment has been done in the house in the Individual land of the assessee; i.e. Mr. Kheti Lal Sharma as single owner. ii. The period of construction is mentioned as Nov. 2005 to 31/01/2010. 3. Therefore, in view of the Point No. the construction has also been done after the due date of filing the return of income U....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 reproduc....