TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny municipality though record clearly shows that Government of Maharashtra has constituted Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation vide Notification No.MIS 2306/412/CR-223/2006/UD-24 dated 03.07.2009 and the Tribunal is wrong in holding that Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation is constituted by Notification No. VVM 2009/88/CR-244/09/UD-23 dated 31.05.2011 without appreciating the fact that it only amends the notification dated 03.07.2009 ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in not appreciating the fact that the assessee was engaged in sale of land and therefore, the land transaction was in the nature of trade and liable to tax ? 4. To appreciate the questions proposed, it would be necessary to advert to the relevant facts. 5. In the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2011-12, Assessing Officer noted that though the assessee had disclosed 17 sale transactions pertaining to the Assessment Year under consideration, 3 transactions were not disclosed. The transactions took place on 21.04.2010, 01.05.2010 and 20.08.2010. After giving notice to the assessee and after hearing the assessee, Assessing Officer in his Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he city of Vasai-Virar was constituted. Municipal Corporation of the city of Vasai-Virar comprises of Vasai Municipal Council, Navghar-Manikpur Municipal Council, Nalasopara Municipal Council, Virar Municipal Council smaller area and 53 villages in the district of Thane. He submits that on objection raised that the 53 villages should be excluded from the Municipal Corporation of the city of Vasai-Virar, Government of Maharashtra in the Urban Development Department issued subsequent notification dated 31.05.2011 excluding 29 villages but the village of Juchandra was not excluded. Therefore, his contention is that village of Juchandra was part of Municipal Corporation of Vasai-Virar on and from 03.07.2009. The sale of land having taken place thereafter during the Assessment Year 2011-12, those lands cannot be treated as agricultural lands and earnings from the sale of such land would be income from capital gains. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that questions as framed relates to finding of fact by the Tribunal and, therefore, no question of law arises therefrom. He has referred to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as provisions of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt board and which has a population of not less than 10000. Therefore, inversely speaking, a land which is outside the jurisdiction of a municipality or a cantonment board and which has a population of less than 10000 would come within the ambit of the expression "agricultural land" to be excluded from 'capital asset'. The use of the word "and" between the two conditions i.e., first condition being not situated within the jurisdiction of a municipality or a cantonment board and second being such area having a population of not less than 10000, to bring the land outside the purview of agricultural land, is indicative of the legislative intent that the two requirements as alluded to hereinabove would have to be read conjunctively. In other words, both the requirements or conditions would have to be fulfilled to bring the land outside the scope and ambit of agricultural land to be treated as capital asset. Otherwise, even if one is not fulfilled or is not present, it would be an agricultural land which would not be included within and treated as capital asset. 16. At this stage, we may mention that learned standing counsel, revenue had argued that the expression "any area" has to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2011. In this backdrop, Tribunal concluded that the land sold by the respondent-assessee at Juchandra village was agricultural land since the sale transaction had taken place prior to 31.05.2011. 20. On this point, we cannot agree with the finding returned by the Tribunal. Government of Maharashtra notification dated 03.07.2009 clearly mentioned that under subsections - (2) and (2A) of Section (3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation was constituted and 03.07.2009 was specified to be the date when the larger urban area comprising the whole of Vasai Municipal Council, Navghar-Manikpur Municipal Council, Nalasopara Municipal Council, Virar Municipal Council smaller area and 53 villages including the village of Juchandra were declared as forming the city having a Corporation by the name of Municipal Corporation of the city of Vasai-Virar. Therefore, legally speaking, 03.07.2009 is the date of constitution of the larger urban area by the name of Municipal Corporation of the city of Vasai-Virar of which the village Juchandra became a part. It is another matter that by the subsequent notification dated 31.05.2011, 29 villages ....