Itta/140/2011 Of Gutta Venkata Rama Devi v. The Income Tax Officer

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.140 of 2011 June 28, 2011 Between: Gutta Venkata Rama Devi, Gudivada, Krishna District AND … Appellant The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Gudivada, Krishna District … Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.140 of 2011 JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) For the assessment year 2007–08 the appellant, whose mainsource of income is from house property and other sources besidesagricultural income, filed return of the income of Rs.1,22,983/- andRs.55,500/- towards agricultural income. During the scrutiny of thereturn the assessing officer, having found that the assessee failedto offer capital gains on the value of the land sold for aconsideration of Rs.44,94,000/-, asked for particulars. Theappellant demurred contending that the land sold is situated within 5KMs from the Municipal limits of Gudivada and, therefore, the saleproceeds do not attract capital gains. The assessing officer got itverified by the Inspector who conducted inspection in the presenceof the assessee. After coming to the conclusion that the land issituated within the Municipal limits i.e., at a distance of 3.7 KMsfrom the Agricultural Market Committee, Gudivada, the assessingofficer brought the sale proceeds from the land to capital gains andcompleted the assessment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellantwent in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),Vijayawada, who confirmed the assessment order of the assessingofficer. The appellant then unsuccessfully filed appeal being ITANo.473/ VIZAG/2010 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Visakhapatnam Bench, who confirmed the order of the Appellate Commissioner. The Counsel for the appellant submits that the assessingofficer got the distance verified by the Inspector, who measured itby going on a vehicle from the bus stand of Gudivada town which ismost objectionable. He disputes the contention of the departmentthat the land is situated within the Municipal limits of Gudivada. We have perused the orders of the assessing authority,Appellate Commissioner as well as the learned Tribunal. It is notonly the report submitted by the Inspector that was considered bythe Appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal. Both theauthorities also took into consideration the certificate produced bythe appellant which was issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer,Roads and Buildings. Even according to the certificate, the landwas at a distance of 5.6 KMs from the periphery of the Municipallimits. After considering the same, the Appellate Commissionerobserved that, in order to know whether or not the land sold issituated with the Municipal limits, it should be measured from thecentre of Gudivada Municipality but not from the periphery of theMunicipal limits. The same weighed with the learned Tribunal whileconsidering the appeal. The issue whether the land sold by theappellant during the assessment year falls within 5 KMs from theMunicipal limits of Gudivada is certainly a question of fact and,when such question of fact was materially decided by the AppellateCommissioner and the learned Tribunal, no interference is called forin this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no orderas to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) June 28, 2011YS