TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1095
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome Tax Act , 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2013-14. 2. Briefly stated the assessee is an individual. For the Assessment Year 2013-14, return declaring an income of Rs.21,40,350/- was filed by the assessee. In the return of income, the Long Term Capital Gain arising on sale of agricultural land at Village Biranvas, Tehsil Kotkasim (Khasra No.126, 125, 338/122, 342/124, 136) was claimed as exempt. The return filed by the assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment. 2.1 From the assessment order, it transpires that the land sold was purchased in the Year 2005-06 for a total consideration of Rs.26,82,510/-. The assessee had initially computed the indexed cost at Rs.41,32,217/-, which was subsequently revised to Rs.45,98,588/- and accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce to Section 54B of the Act. The assessee also filed 'additional ground' to the effect that the capital gains on sale of agricultural land at Village Biranvas, Tehsil Kotkasim was not taxable at the first instance owing to the fact that the land in question was situated beyond 8 kms of Municipal limits of Bhiwadi and as such, it did not fall within the definition of capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act. In support of the additional ground, the assessee has also moved an application for admission of the 'additional evidences' under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963. As stated on the behalf of the assessee, the additional evidences are placed for admission by the Tribunal to demonstrate that the land at village ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not entitled to approach the Court after enormous delay without any satisfactory explanation. The failure of the person, who has the right to approach the authority, to so approach within a reasonable time amounts to a waiver of the right and is, thus not liable to be heard in the matter. The ld. DR further referred to the judgment rendered in the case of The Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. vs. CIT judgment dated 10.12.2014 in ITA No.13 of 2013 and contended that the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. vs. CIT as reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) does not help the case of the assessee where the relevant facts are not available ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claimed under Section 54B as well as alternative claim made under Section 54F was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the premise that the conditions for claim of deduction are not fulfilled either under Section 54B or under Section 54F of the Act. As a sequel, the assessee was made liable to pay tax on capital gains of Rs.46,51,412/-. 9. The assessee before us took a new stand that the agricultural land giving rise to impugned capital gain is situated beyond 8 kms of municipal limits of Bhiwadi and thus does not fall within the definition of expression 'capital asset' under Section 2(14) of the Act. The asset sold (agricultural land) not being a capital asset under deeming fiction of Section 2(14) of the Act, the capital gain arising th....