Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
K.C.Jayagopal, , Chennai vs Department Of Income Tax on 14 October, 2013
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"A" BENCH, CHENNAI
BEFORE Dr. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENTAND
SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 984(Mds)/2012
Assessment Year : 2002-03
The Assistant Commissioner Shri K.C. Jayagopal,
of Income Tax, v. No.8/2, Bharathidasan St.,
Central Circle - I(5), Singaperumal Koil,
Chennai - 600 034. Chengleput TK,
Kanchipuram District.
PAN : ADGPJ 6687 D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri N. Madhavan, IRS, JCIT
Respondent by : Shri T. Banusekar, CA
Date of Hearing : 14th October, 2013
Date of Pronouncement : 14th October, 2013
ORDER
PER Dr.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT This appeal filed by the Revenue relates to assessment year 2002-03. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I at Chennai, dated 13.2.2012. The appeal arises out of the order passed by the 2 I.T.A. No. 984/Mds/12 Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Sections 153A, 153C and 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. The ground raised by the Revenue in the present appeal is that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards capital gains of ` 38,75,000/-, holding that the land is situated outside the municipal limits of Chengelpet. Case of the Revenue is that the CIT(Appeals) has failed to note that the land is situated within the municipal limits of Maraimalainagar and as per 2001 Census, the population of Maraimalainagar was 48,463 and therefore, there cannot be any exemption under Section 2(14) of Income-tax Act, 1961. It is also the case of the Revenue that the land was sold for non-agricultural purposes and as such, the gains arising out of the transfer of land is taxable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sarifa Bibi Mohamed Ibrahim v. CIT (204 ITR 631).
3. We heard Shri N. Madhavan, IRS, learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, appearing for Revenue and Shri T. Banusekar, learned Chartered Accountant, appearing for the respondent-assessee.
3 I.T.A. No. 984/Mds/12
4. On going through the records of the case and orders of the lower authorities, we find that the land squarely falls outside the limits of municipality. It is also beyond dispute that Maraimalainagar was not notified by Central Board of Direct Taxes to be a place to be treated as municipality for the purpose of levying capital gains tax. Reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of Sarifa Bibi Mohamed Ibrahim v. CIT (204 ITR 631) is misplaced.
5. In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
6. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Monday, 14th October, 2013 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
(Vikas Awasthy) (Dr. O.K.Narayanan)
Judicial Member Vice-President
Chennai,
Dated, the 14th October, 2013.
Kri.
Copy to: 1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT, Central-I, Chennai
4. CIT(A)-I, Chennai
5. DR
6. GF.