TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1719
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in as much as there has been no | reason to believe that there was an escapement of income in as much as the reasons recorded are based only on borrowed information and as such the assessment order passed is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 89,89,440/- made on account of alleged short term capital gains on sale of rural agricultural land which is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 89,89,440/- treating agricultural land sold to be a Capital Asset especially stating that the land was situated beyond the specified municipal limits which is arbitrary and unjustified. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the finding that the rural agricultural land sold was short term capital gains and not long term capital gain without considering the date of acquisition, cost of acquisition, distance from the specified MC especially when specifically raise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....during the course of appellate proceeding and find no evidentiary value in the submission. Firstly, the submission made by the appellant are only in the nature of narration and no supporting documents has been filed. Even If the appellant's contention is to be "accepted, then also it has to file corroborative evidence to support its claim. However, no evidence has been filed by the appellant to prove that this was agricultural rural land where regular farming has been taking place. Also the notification no. 9447 dated 06.01.1994 is by no means exhaustive and one of the preconditions for taxing as a capital asset is that it should be within 4 Kms of Municipal Limits. By appellant's own admission, this has been found to be within city limit of MC Pinjore and is therefore, taxable as a capital asset. A mere narration cannot be taken as proof of the factual position. The appellant has not been able to give any convincing or cogent explanations about the additions made. 6.1 In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in the AO's order and therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 89,89,440/- is sustained and the groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cultural Lands sold by the assessee were not "CAPITAL ASSET" under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being not filling under any specified MC and as such sale thereof is not liable for Capital Gains. That on the date of filing of the certificate from the Tehsildar i.e. 22.11.2019, the learned Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to explain the date of acquisition, period of holding, cost of Acquisition, investment in the purchase of Agricultural Lands etc after the sale. Sir, as mentioned above the Agriculture Lands sold under consideration were inherited property inherited on 28.05.1994 (copy of jamabandi and intkal i.e. revenue records of ownership are attached) for your kind perusal and consideration. Hence the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) lind made the grave error in treating the sale of Rural Agriculture Lands liable for Capital Gain In view of the above the order of the Ld. AO is erroncous, arbitrary. opposed to law and facts of the case and principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. 8. It was submitted that the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the municipal limits were upto Hapur Chungi and from where the distance was 8.7 kms. approx. as per IT Inspector's report. The basis of submission is that for the purpose of exemption u/s 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, the notification by Central Government is mandatory and there was no notification after 06.01.1994. Hence, the expansion of municipal limits from Hapur Chungi to Dasna Flyover on 41.08.1994 should be irrelevant in absence of any further notification. Therefore, the land in question at Village Masuri is not a capital asset. The above proposition is duly supported by the case laws relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Hence, in the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. Similarly the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Achhelal Yadav VS ITO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 507 (Kolkata - Trib.) has held as under: 7. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee, took us through the paper book containing 175 pages of which page 158 to 160 provides copy of Notification dated 6th January, 1994 vide Notification No. [SO 9447] (File No. 164/3/97-ITA.I), in order ....