TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Law of the Jurisdiction. The Vendee was also given the power to make survey of the land and to get it demarcated according to his plan. Therefore, actual transfer of land u/s 2(47)(v) and (vi). The transfer of land was as on the date of execution and registry of the agreement to sale which was 29. 12. 2006. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) Moradabad (UP) has erred in law and on facts in holding that at the time of final and absolute agreement of sale the character of land from agriculture to non-agriculture was converted by order dated 10/10/2007 u/s 143 of Jamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act. 4. That as per the revenue records the land in question was confirmed to be used as agriculture land and no nature of land was changed at any time upto the final and absolute registry on 18. 09. 2008 and even after that. 5. That the land under question was not the capital assets liable to capital gain tax being not covered by the definition of capital assets given in sec. 2(14) of the Act. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) Moradabad (UP) has erred in law and on facts in not giving his verdict on the alternative additional ground taken by the appellant before him and which were referred for comment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt on 29-12-2006 to sell the inherited land to M/s Uttar Develop Pvt. Ltd. The fact that thereafter the characters of the land was converted from agriculture to non-agriculture is a fact on record. It was submitted that vide order dated 10/10/2007 passed u/s 143 of the Jamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act vide case number 22/05 by the state revenue authority, Kashipur the character was changed. Therefore in view of the subsequent sale deed executed/registered in the office of the sub-registrar Kashipur on 18. 09. 2008/24. 09. 2008 the land was no longer an agricultural land. The Ld. Sr. DR, further submitted that though the assessee had argued that the land was agricultural land but the enquiry carried out at the behest of the assessee about the status of the specific land at the relevant point of time as noted in para 6 of the assessment order showed that at that point of time there was no agricultural activity being carried on as has been noted in para 6 by the Assessing Officer. 4.1. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that reliance on the orders in the case of the sisters / co-owners is of no consequence as principles of resjudicata do not strictly apply to the income tax proceedings.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter. It is evident that under similar set of facts and circumstances, in the case of the other co-owners for the sale of the same very land, at the very same point of time the proceeds received from the specific land in the hands of the co-owners have not been brought to tax. In the absence of any supporting argument for taking a contrary view in the facts of the present case I find that the legitimate expectation of the co-owner for a similar treatment cannot be snuffled. The law and the respect of law is founded on the principle of fairness, equality and certainty. Admittedly in the case of the assessee nothing is available on record for the Revenue to justify why the attitude of pick and choose of meeting out different treatments towards similarly situated identical assesses has been held to be appropriate. Such actions lay the exercise of power open to the challenge of being whimsical and perverse. The legitimate expectation of the tax payers to similar treatment from the administration or quasi administration authorities cannot be crushed the right to call upon the authority to justify why the identically situated assesses should be differently treated has to be addressed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order. The land by generation to generation was used for agricultural purposes. Land Tax (Lagaan) was also fixed at Rs. 39. 65 per year. Revenue record showed that land was agricultural land and it remains even after sale. The other 3 co-owners namely Smt. Jagwati, Smt. Kamlesh and Km. Kishania exempted from capital gain as no any notice was issued or proceedings were initiated. The Proceedings were initiated u/s 147/148 in case of Smt. Kranti Devi one of the co-owner by observing that Smt. Kranti has sold out property and got registered documents with Sub-registrar Kashipurdistt. U. S. Nagar on 18/9/2008 making transaction of Rs. 1, 22, 91, 500/-. Verification letter u/s 133(6) issued to the party. Assessee replied and placed on records. Transfer deed executed has also been obtained and placed on records. The share of the assessee party in the questioned property is only 'A in sale consideration amount is Rs. 98, 52, 000/- The property was converted into non-agricultural use from 17/3/2008. Therefore the land is considered to be a plot of land. However situated out of municipal area of Teh. KashipurDistt. U. S. Nagar. Therefore he drawn his reason that capital gain is es....