Itta/297/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Smt.t. Urmila

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.297 of 2013 DATED: 17.7.2013 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Hyderabad.. … Appellant AndSmt. T.URmila,Hyderabad. …. Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.297 OF 2013 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and orderof the learned Tribunal dated 12.12.2012 and is sought to beadmitted on the following suggested questions of law: (i)In the facts and circumstances of the case, whetherthe Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holdingthat the land sold by the respondent-assessee do notcome within the meaning of “Capital Asset” underSection 2(14)(iii) of the Act and the sale of the said landscannot be considered as a transfer of capital asset,which is exigible to Long Term Capital Gains ? (ii)In the facts and circumstances of the case, whetherthe Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holdingthat Hyderabad Airport Development Authority (HADA)is not a local body and the subject land is not a capitalasset in spite of the fact that the HADA is an authorityunder Government and subject land comes within thedefinition of capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii) of theAct ?the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holdingthat Hyderabad Airport Development Authority (HADA)is not a local body and the subject land is not a capitalasset in spite of the fact that the HADA is an authorityunder Government and subject land comes within thedefinition of capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii) of theAct ? We have heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counselfor the appellant and have gone through the impugnedjudgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal on fact, found that the land inquestion at the time of transfer did not lose the character ofagricultural one. Further, it was held on fact that the HyderabadAirport Development Authority(HADA) is not a local body. It wasfurther held that the land in question was not a capital asset asdefined under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Section 2(14) (iii)(a) and (b) reads as follows: “(iii) agricultural land in India not being, land situate__ (a) In any area, which is comprised within the jurisdiction ofa municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipalcorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, towncommittee or by any other name) or a cantonment board and whichhas a population of not less than ten thousand according to the lastpreceding census of which the relevant figures have been publishedbefore the first day of the previous year; or (b) In any area within such distance, not being more thaneight kilometers, from the local limits of any municipality orcantonment board referred to in item (a), as the Central Governmentmay, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanization ofthat area and other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf bynotification in the Official Gazette.” Hyderabad Airport Development Authority, is therefore, nota Body within the meaning of Clauses (a) and (b) of the saidSection. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has held that theproceeds of sale of agricultural land do not form capital gain, asthey do not relate to capital asset. We are of the view that theTribunal has come to the correct conclusion. There is noelement of law involved in this appeal, for which, decision of thisCourt is required. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ G. ROHINI, J 17.07.2013 pnb