Kumari Taruna Suthar v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Taxdepartment, Bikaner

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3815 / 2017 Kumari Taruna Suthar D/o Shri Panna Lal Nagal, Aged About 26Years, Resident of B-29, Karni Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Income TaxDepartment, Bikaner. 2. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Bikaner. ----RespondentsConnected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3816 / 2017 Ratan Devi Nagal W/o Shri Panna Lal Nagal, Aged About 52 Years,Resident of B-29, Karni Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Income TaxDepartment, Bikaner. 2. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Bikaner. ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sundeep BhandawatFor Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Order 30/10/2017 The matter comes up on an application (APPLWNo.5213/17), for early hearing of the case. The application isallowed and the matter is taken up today itself for hearing. The prayer in the present petitions is to set aside theimpugned demand made vide order dated 29.08.2016 towards capital asset on account of the sale of agricultural land of thepetitioners. While praying for the relief, learned counsel for thepetitioners submitted that their land does not fall under thecategory of capital asset. “Capital asset” is defined under Section2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which includes ‘AgriculturalLand’ in India, but not being the land situated in any area withinthe distance measured aerially not being more than sixkilometers, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonmentboard referred to in item (a) and which has a population of morethan one lac but not exceeding ten lacs within the asset measure.It is stated that as per measure, the land is situated beyond 6Kms. distance of Bikaner Municipality and the population also doesnot exceed 10 lacs. Without going into the merit of the case but taking intoaccount that the appeal is still pending, this Court deems it properto direct the respondents not to take any coercive action againstthe petitioners in pursuance to the demand order dated29.08.2016 during the pendency of the appeal before theauthority concerned. It goes without saying that the respondentsshall decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. (NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.