TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as prayed for. iii) That on facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the action of the AO in applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act while computing the addition of capital gains." And the grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are as under: (1) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in direction the AO to verify and allow the claim u/s 54 by ignoring that (i) assessee had not made the claim u/s 58 in return of income, (ii) Section 54B deduction is allowed only if the land is used for agricultural purposes, (Hi) Section 54B envisages that in the 2 immediate preceding years, the assessee should have used the land for agricultural purposes which is not satisfied in this case as the lands have been purchased in one financial year and sold in immediate next financial year. (2) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made u/s 68 of Rs. 64,85,000/- + Rs. 2,63,00,000/- + Rs. 3,34,50,000/- aggregating Rs. 6,62,35,000/- without appreciating the discrepancies and findings given by the AO in the remand report in the right perspective. (3) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of Id. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ital asset. The contention of the Revenue, on the other hand, is otherwise. The assessee has sold two pieces of land during the year - (i) situated in Gam Telav, Ta. Sanand, and (ii) land at Gam Sanathal, Ta. Sanand. The assessee had contended that the lands fell in the exception provided u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Actbeing situated beyond 8 Kms. from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and had measured the distance as per Google Map and based on certificate of Dy. Engineer, Roads & Building Department. The assessee had submitted that both the land are located under Sanand Taluka, and are located beyond 2 Kms. from the local limit of Sanand, and therefore, as per the Notification No.SO-9447 (F.No.164/3-ITA-I dated 6.1.1994, they are not urban agricultural land. The assessee had also submitted Google Map and letter of Dy.Engineer, Road & Building Department, reporting distance beyond 8 Kms. from the limit of the AMC and beyond 2 Kms. from the Sanand Municipality. The facts relating to the measurement of distance furnished by the assessee from the Google Map and certificate of the Dy. Engineer are as under: Measurement of Distance Further the distance of Land is as under; Land ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is held by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v/s Murali Lodge 194 ITR 125 (Ker) that only those local authorities, township, etc. can be treated as municipality within meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(a) which satisfy the requirements of a municipality within the meaning of relevant Municipal Act. It is held in following judgements that a Development Authority is not a Municipality: a. Smt.T. Urmila v/s ITO (2012} 34 CCH 0477 HydTrib & b. ITO v/s Shri Adela Krishna Reddy [ITA No.l838/Hyd/2013) Measurement of Distance Further the distance of Land is as under; Land at Distance as per Google Map Page Reference Ahmedabad Sannand Telav 18.3 KMs 6.2 KMs Page 7 & 8 of GT Appeal Order - Sanathal 13.5 KMs 11.6 KMs Distance based on Certificate of Deputy Engineer Road and Building Department Dated 08.05.2019. Distance from Ahmedabad to Telav 16 KMs Page 7 & 8 of C1T Appeal Order Distance from Ahmedabad to Sanathal 12 KMs The provision regarding measurement of distance 'aerially' has been introduced for the first time by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f, 01.04.2015 only. Thus, in this case the distance between the impugned land 'm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in item (a) and which has a population of more than ten thousand but not exceeding one lakh; or (II) not being more than six kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a) and which has a population of more than one lakh but not exceeding ten lakh; or (III) not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a) and which has a population of more than ten lakh. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-clause, "population" means the population according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous year; 11. As is evident, agricultural and situated within the jurisdiction of municipality or cantonment board or within the specified limits of such municipality or cantonment board, qualify as capital asset. The limits from the respective municipalities or cantonment boards, have been specified by the CBDT in its Notification No.SO-9447 F.No.164/3-ITA-I dated 6.1.1994. The Revenue has held the land qualifying as "capital asset" on the basis that the land was included in the AUDA, and are ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in necessary distance certificate from the appropriate authority, and thereafter adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. The assesses claim of exemption u/s 54B of the Act, is also restored back to be dealt with thereafter. The ground no.1 to 3 raised by the assessee, therefore, are allowed for statistical purpose. As also, the ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is also allowed for statistical purpose. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 17. Now we shall deal with the remaining grounds of appeal of the Revenue. 18. The ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is as under: "(2) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made u/s 68 of Rs. 64,85,000/- + Rs. 2,63,00,000/- + Rs. 3,34,50,000/- aggregating Rs. 6,62,35,000/- without appreciating the discrepancies and findings given by the AO in the remand report in the right perspective." 19. The issue relates to the addition made under section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,62,35,000/- which was deleted by the ld.CIT(A). 20. The facts relating to the case being that as per the AIR information, the assessee found to have credited amounts exceeding Rs. 2.00 lakhs in cash in his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt has been received during the year, and therefore, addition cannot be made. I agree with the submission made by the appellant that credit in the bank account in respect of above persons are recovery of advance made in earlier year and receipt is by cheque, and therefore, same cannot be added u/s. 68 of the Act as held by Honourable Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT, Surat- 1 Vs. Shree Mahavir Crimpers [2018] 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj'arat) and decision in the case of CIT Vs. Aayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangi. Therefore, the addition made by the AO to the extent of Rs. 64,85,000/- in respect of credit from above persons is deleted. 4.2.9. The appellant in respect of following persons has stated that he has submitted the confirmation and the amount has been received through cheque, therefore, addition is not justified. The appellant has further submitted that the credit entry in the bank is loan which has been subsequently repaid, and therefore, addition u/s. 68 cannot be made in view of decision of jurisdictional High Court. Sr No. on page 13 and 14 of the assessment order and also SR no as per Remand Report NAME AMOUNT 02 AbdulhaaShamshulhaa 50,00,000 03 Tajbhan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Impex Pvt. Ltd. The appellant has withdrawn fund from firm and deposited in his bank account. Appellant further explained the immediate source of fund as amount received by M/s. A. K. Buildcon from M/s. Lapis Impex Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer has noted that the credit worthiness of the party from whom loan has been taken has not been proved. It is seen that appellant has submitted copy of partnership deed, copy of confirmation, copy of bank statement of M/s. A. K. Buildcon along with copy of confirmation from Lapiz Impex Pvt. Ltd., its bank statement and annual accounts of M/s. Lapis Impex Pvt. Ltd. Appellant has also submitted that M/s. Lapis Impex Pvt. Ltd. had reserves and surplus of Rs. 7,41,86,000/- as on 31/03/2010 and on 31/03/2011. M/s. Lapis Impex Pvt. Ltd. has contributed through its bank account in the partnership concern M/s. A. K. Buildcon. The appellant has withdrawn capital from the firm and credited in its bank account. In view of the above, the credit entry in the bank account of appellant in respect of M/s. A. K. Buildcon is explained. As regard to credit entry of Rs. 11,00,000/- in respect of Smt. Shamana Shajid Momin, the Assessing Officer has observed th....