THE A.C.I.T. Vs. VINITA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal by revenue and cross objection by assessee arise from the order dated 12/04/2012 of Ld. CIT(A) -II, Jaipur. Respective grounds of appeal as well as C.O. are as under: - -

(2.) UNDER the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting and deciding the fifth ground of the assessee that the learned Assessing Officer erred in determining short term capital gain at Rs. 3,00,35,000/ - on the acquisition of the land notwithstanding the fact that the learned CIT(A) has given decision that no capital gains are taxable in the case of the assessee being exempt U/s. 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961."

(3.) NOW the Revenue is in appeal as well the assessee is in C.O. before us. The learned Sr. D.R. supported the order of the Assessing Officer and argued that the learned CIT(A) has not applied the correct law in deciding the issue before him. As per Section 2(47) of the Act, the definition of transfer has been amended w.e.f. 1/4/1988. As per this definition, the assessee has released/relinquished immovable property to the JDA on 30/5/2006. The assessee acquired agricultural land on 21/4/2005, the assessee did not carry out any agricultural activity as no evidence has been submitted before the Assessing Officer, even two years as prescribed U/s. 10(37) of the Act has not been completed. Whatever the case laws relied upon by the learned CIT(A) are relevant to old law and has not considered the definition of transfer which came in the effect from 01/4/1985. She particularly drawn our attention on definition of transfer i.e. exchange, relinquishment, extinguishment of any right, which has been perfectly analysed by the learned Assessing Officer to decide the case. Therefore, she prayed to confirm the order of the learned Assessing Officer.