Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Aggrieved by addition made by Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A).

3. Before Ld.CIT(A), assessee contended that, said property was agricultural land and cannot be treated as capital asset. Assessee filed purchase documents, sale documents, Ledger accounts of transaction before Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that said property was purchased for consideration of Rs.4,70,000/- on 29/09/03, and was held as agricultural property, which was sold as it is, on 31/01/04 for a sum of Rs.70,00,000/-. Assessee submitted that, out of total consideration received by assessee, sum of Rs.15,50,000/- was realised on 05/02/04 and sum of Rs.54,00,000/- was realised on 30/06/04. Assessee furnished certificate dated 28/01/11 from PWD stating that, property is beyond 12.6 km from BBMP limits. He thus argued that land sold is not a capital asset as per section 2 (14) of the Act, and hence capital gains are not ITANo.134-135/Bang/2012 A.Y.2004-05 & 2007-08 attracted, as it is situated more than 8 km from local limits of Bangalore and municipal Corporation. 3.1. The details furnished by assessee was remanded to Ld.AO by Ld.CIT (A) since, they were not filed at the time of assessment. In remand report, Ld.AO ascertained that BDA classified the subject village that included the subject land as residential zone, and therefore cannot be treated as agricultural land as submitted by assessee. In response, assessee alternatively submitted that this may be treated as a single business venture and difference between sale price and cost price should be taxed as business income placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raja J. Rameswaram vs CIT reported in 42 ITR 179.