Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ranjit Singh, Budh Ram And Ram ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 543 Del

Citation : 2003 Latest Caselaw 543 Del
Judgement Date : 14 May, 2003

Delhi High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ranjit Singh, Budh Ram And Ram ... on 14 May, 2003

Equivalent citations: 2004 265 ITR 680 Delhi

Author: D Jain

Bench: D Jain, M B Lokur

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain J.

1. In these three references at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal/ Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), the following question for our opinion :

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not applicable to the rural area of Union Territory of Delhi ?"

2. No one appears for the assesseds. We have accordingly heard Mr. Ajay Jha, learned counsel for the Revenue, As is evident from the format of the question itself, the issue arising for consideration is as to whether the lands in rural areas of Union Territory of Delhi constitute capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act and exigible to capital gain tax on its transfer.

3. We find from the statement of the case that while deciding the issue in favor of the assesseds, the Tribunal has relied on some of its earlier decisions, including the one rendered in the case of Surjan Singh, wherein it was held that the agricultural land in rural areas of the Union Territory of Delhi was outside the scope of capital asset and the aforenoted section was not applicable. The decision of the Tribunal in Surjan Singh's case came up for consideration of this court and vide order dated October 10, 2002, since reported as CIT v. Surjan Singh [2003] 260 ITR 351 (Delhi), it was held that Section 2(14)(iii)(a) is applicable to rural areas of Union Territory of Delhi and capital gain arising on transfer of such agricultural land is chargeable to tax.

4. In view of the said decision, the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favor of the Revenue and against the assesseds.

5. Since the assesseds remain unrepresented, there will be no order as to costs.

6. The references stand disposed of accordingly.