Manjit Kaur Kamboj Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh was filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment and the addition of ₹59,68,800/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating the sale of land as giving rise to taxable capital gains. The primary contention was that the land sold was rural agricultural land and therefore not a “capital asset” under section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee also alleged violation of procedural requirements, including non-supply of reasons recorded under section 148 and failure to consider documentary evidence and additional evidence under Rule 46A.
There was a delay of 313 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the delay, which was not opposed by the Revenue. After considering the affidavit, the Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.
On merits, the central issue for adjudication was whether the land sold constituted agricultural land outside the specified municipal limits and beyond the prescribed distance, so as to fall outside the definition of “capital asset” under section 2(14). The assessee relied on a certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat stating that the land was situated outside the municipal limits and contended that even the population criteria were not met. It was also submitted that once documentary evidence showed the land to be agricultural and beyond municipal limits, capital gains could not be charged.
