High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C.I.T. v. M.R. Talreja - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 171 of 1988  RD-AH 1629 (6 December 2004)
Income Tax Reference No.171 of 1988
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Meghraj Talreja, Raebareli.
Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J
Hon'ble P. Krishna, J
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion to this Court:-
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the claim of exemption on capital gains of Rs.29,727/- was allowable?"
Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows:-
The reference relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The respondent assessee is assessed to tax under the Act as individually. During the assessment year in question the accounting period of the assessee relevant to this assessment year ended on 31.3.1981. The relevant assessee has sold the agricultural land on 31.3.1981 for Rs.55,770/- and the respondent assessee earned a net surplus of Rs.29,727/- on account of the sale of land. The land was situated within the municipal limits of Rai Bareli. Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Manubhai A. Seth and others vs. ITO (1981) 128 ITR 87, the respondent assessee claimed that Income-tax was not leviable on the capital gain arising from the sale of agricultural land. The ITO, however, rejected the claim of the assessee which order was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, in further appeal, the Tribunal following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the above mentioned case, allowed the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard Shri Shambhu Chopra, the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee. The learned standing counsel for the Revenue submitted that under section 2 (14) of the Act capital assets have been defined to include agricultural land situated within the jurisdiction of Municipality by whatever name called and therefore it being capital asset was liable to capital gains on its sale. He referred to the following decisions:-
1. (1993) ,204 ITR 63 : Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim and others Vs. C.I.T.
2. (1996), 220 ITR 43: CIT vs. Gemini Picture Circuit Pvt. Ltd.
3. (2001), 247 ITR 150: Singhai Rakesh Kumar vs. Union of India and others.
In the case of Singhai Rakesh Kumar (Supra) the Apex Court has held that the gains arising from transfer of lands falling under section 2 (14) (iii)(ia) and 2 (14) (iii) (b) is assessable as capital gains from 1.4.1970. In this view of the matter we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in granting exemption on the agricultural land situated within the Municipal Limits of Rai Bareilly from capital gains.
We accordingly answer of the question of law referred to us in negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.