`1. Ld. CIT (A) committed a real and legal error, in confirming AO`s action, by valuing the date of acquisition of land as being 13.04.2010 in relation to the date of acquisition of land of 11.04.2007, the date on which the land was acquired and obtained ownership within the meaning of the sale agreement of an even date, and therefore the profit from the sale of the land as a short-term capital gain instead of the long-term capital gain claimed by the expert. 2. Point 1 concerns the long-term capital gain from the sale of land, which has been treated by AO as a short-term capital gain. Assessee is a company and is active in the agency sector. Assessee presented its revenue return for the investment year 2011-12 & 2012-13 and reported total income in paragraph 9.83.704 / – and loss in paragraph 29.06.564 / / – respectively. The case was retained for examination and, during the examination, AO found that the valuation company had acquired agricultural land with a certificate of sale dated 13.04.2010. The auditor sold the deed of sale of the land on 07.03.2011 and 04.05.2011 and claims a long-term capital gain from the sale of the land. AO rejected assessee`s claim and found that the land had been acquired by assessee by deed of sale of 13.04.2010 and therefore calculated the short-term capital gain in accordance with the provisions of Article 50C of the Act.
Aggrieved by AO`s appeal to take into account the date of acquisition of the land on 13.04.2010 compared to 11.04.2007, Assessee filed the complaint with ld. CIT (A). The Assessee did before the ld. CIT (A) argues that if assessee acquired the land in question with a sales contract of 11.04.2007 in exchange for full consideration and ownership of the land transferred to Assessee at the time of execution of the said contract, the date of purchase of the land must be taken on 11.04.2007. The CIT (A) did not accept the appraiser`s assertion and found that the land sold by the judge was agricultural land and constituted an agricultural operation prior to its conversion to a non-agricultural use. Agricultural land belonging to the Schedule caste may not be transferred in accordance with section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955, which prohibits the sale, gift or inheritance by a member of the Scheduled caste for the benefit of a person who is not a member of the La Chedule caste. Accordingly, ld. CIT (A) confirms the treatment of surplus value as short-term surplus value.
In that judgment, the importance of the documents, which form part of the transaction of the deed of sale, in the course of which legal sanctity is discussed: Conclusion: the assessee was entitled to claim a long-term capital gain from the sale of the land as a transfer in accordance with the provisions of section 2 (47), was to be taken into consideration, at the time of the agreement of 11.04.2007, instead of the execution of the deed of sale of 13.04.2010, Since the purchase agreement of 11.04.2007, the transformation of land use by JDA on 03.02.2010 and 05.02.2010 and the deed of sale of execution of 13.04.2010 were chains of related and inseparable events necessary for the transaction of the transfer. . . .