Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur
Income Tax Officer Ward -1(1),, Raipur vs Tikamchand Pritwani,, Raipur on 19 June, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
.
ITA no.160/BLPR./2011
(Assessment Year : 2008-09)
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)
Central Revenue Building ............... Appellant
Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G)
बनाम v/s
Tikamchand Pritwani
C-63, Samta Colony ................... Respondent
Raipur (C.G) - PAN AJSPP5754B
Revenue by : Shri D.K. Jain
Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi
Date of Hearing - 12.06.2015 Date of Order - 19.06.2015
ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M.
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 29th March 2011, passed by the learned CIT(A), Bilaspur, for the assessment year 2008-09. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under:-
"Whether in law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ` 28,05,508, made by the A.O. on account of long term capital gain."
Tikamchand Pritwani 2
2. In this case, we observe that the assessee had sold agricultural land at Village Ghughawa, Tehsil Patan, Dist. Durg, for a total consideration of ` 30 lakh. The assessee has claimed that since it was an agricultural land situated much beyond 32 kms from Bhilai Municipality area, hence, gain on the same was exempt. However, the Assessing Officer deputed an inspector who observed that the said property was situated within 6 to 7 kms. from Municipality area of Raipur and, hence, the same should be treated as "capital asset". Accordingly, the Assessing Officer taxed the receipt as "capital gain".
3. Upon assessee's appeal, the learned CIT(A) held that for the purpose of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, the Municipality referred is the one which has the jurisdiction over the area. In the present case, since the jurisdiction was Bhilai, the Municipality which was beyond 8 kms., therefore, the learned CIT(A) held that capital gain was not exigible. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us.
4. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that provision of the Act exempts land from the purview of capital gains which are situated beyond 8 kms. from the local limits of any Municipality, hence, he submitted that in the present case, since the concerned property was situated within 8 kms. of Raipur Municipality, the Assessing Officer was correct in levying capital gain on the sale of such land.
5. Per-contra, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is not any Municipality but the Municipality which has jurisdiction over the area has to be considered for this purpose. In this regard, he referred to the following case laws:-
i) DCIT v/s Capital Local Area Bank Ltd., 123 TTJ 918 (Asr.);
ii) CIT v/s Satinder Pal Singh, 33 DTR 281 (P&H); and
iii) Srinivas Pandit (HUF) v/s ITO, 29 CCH 352 (Hyd.).
Tikamchand Pritwani 3
6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, in the case of DCIT v/s Capital Local Area Bank Ltd. (supra), had considered similar issue after a very elaborate discussion on the issue and considered several case laws on the issue. The Tribunal had held that it is the Municipality which has jurisdiction over the area in which properties lie which has to be considered. Any other Municipality which does not have jurisdiction over the property / land, is not the Municipality mentioned in section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act. Since in the present case, it is undisputed that it was Bhilai Municipality which has jurisdiction over the land and the same was beyond 8 kms. from the impugned land, the learned CIT(A) has rightly held that sale of such land was not exigible to capital gain tax. We may also point out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v/s CIT, (2007) 295 ITR 466 (SC), has held that when an order of the co-ordinate bench is placed before the Tribunal and was not consi9dered by it while passing the original order, it can amount to a mistake apparent from record. Since in the present case, a decision of the co-ordinate bench has been cited before us and we do not have any reason to defer from the view expressed therein, following the same, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A).
7. In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th June 2015 Sd/- Sd/-
MUKUL K. SHRAWAT SHAMIM YAHYA
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
RAIPUR, DATED: 19th JUNE 2015
Tikamchand Pritwani
4
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1) The Assessee;
(2) The Revenue;
(3) The CIT(A);
(4) The CIT, Bilaspur City concerned;
(5) The DR, ITAT, Raipur
(6) Guard file.
True Copy
By Order
Pradeep J. Chowdhury
Sr. Private Secretary
Sr. Private Secretary /
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, Raipur