PER N.K.SAINI, A.M These three appeals by the department are directed against the separate orders each dated 30/08/2011 of Ld. CIT(A), Alwar. Since the issue involved is common, having identical facts in all these appeals, which were heard together, so, these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2 First we will deal with the appeal in I.T.A.No. 946/JP/2011. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal:-

1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 68,86,844/- on a/c of long term capita gain on sale of land as made by the AO.

2. Department reserves its right to add, alter, modify, delete or amend all or any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee sold agricultural land situated at village Khanpur on 26/06/2006 in joint ownership with his brothers namely Shri Hazari Lal and Shri Mahendra Kumar, for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,24,49,300/-. The assessee had neither invested the sale consideration in purchase of agricultural land nor construction of residential building and had not filed any return of income. Therefore, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act, in short). The assessee submitted that he had filed return of income on 01/12/2008 declaring an income of Rs. 50,000/- and agricultural income of Rs. 25,000/-. It was also stated that the land sold was situated in village Khanpur, which was not covered within the definition of asset under section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, hence, capital gain was not chargeable. The AO made enquiry regarding location and distance of agricultural land with Nagar Palika Tijara which was intimated by the Sub-Registrar that the village Khanpur is situated at 4KM from Bhiwadi Nagar Palika and 30 KM from Tijara Nagar Palika. The councilor Nagar Palika, Ward No.3 had informed that Nagar Palika Bhiwadi had came into existence in November, 2009 and prior to this, village Khanpur was in Khijuribas Panchayat Samiti. It was also confirmed that agricultural crops were being cultivated prior to the sale of agricultural land in question. The AO concluded that this land was part of Municipality Bhiwadi, on the basis of letter received from Secretary Bhiwadi, Patwari Khanpur and notification issued by the Deputy Secretary of Government of Rajasthan. He also observed that the village Khanpur was situated at a distance of 1.5 KM from village Dharuhera (Haryana) which was notified area by the Central Government for the purpose of capital gain and the Central Government had declared Dharuhera as notified area for 5 KM from all the directions. The AO worked out long term capital gain at Rs. 84,18,918/- and after allowing deduction under section 54B, the net long term capital gain chargeable to tax was worked out at Rs. 68,86,844/-.

4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee filed reply in response to the query raised by the AO and also filed evidences of investment made in agricultural land and the residential house. It was further stated that the land was capital asset under town committee by notification dated 19/09/2003. It was stated that the notification issued by the Rajasthan Government, Bhiwadi was declared Municipality on 13/10/2009 after 28 months of the transaction. It was further stated that the area should be within the limit of 8 KM from the local limits of the Municipality, which was the Municipality of Tijara and the village Khanpur is 30 KM from the said municipality and that Dharuhra which is situated in other state i.e. Haryana was not municipality for the F.Y. 2006-07 and it was declared as Municipality in the month of 2007 i.e. during the accounting year 2007-08.

5. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, deleted the addition made by the AO by observing in para 4.3 of the impugned order, which reads as under:-

I have perused the assessment order as well as submission of the assessee and cases relied upon and notifications, it is found that Dharuhera Municipality came in existence in July 2007 and Bhiwadi in November 2009. It means the lands sold was not part of any Municipality area for capital assets define u/s 2(14) of IT Act. The notification No. 10(30)/2000 dated 25/08/2000 was referred by the AO is for future plan of that area for 2021 which does not declare this land in Municipality area. The AO had wrongly assumed the jurisdiction on this case without verifying the facts and also sufficient time has not been given to the assessee to rebut the findings given in the assessment order. When the land sold was not part of the Municipal area, it does not come under section 2(14) of the IT Act as capital assets. It is academic to give the findings on investment made by the assessee in purchase of land and construction of houses for claiming of deduction section 54B of the IT Act. The addition made by the AO is deleted.

Now the department is in appeal.

6. Ld. D.R. although supported the order of the AO, but failed to rebut the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A).

7. In his rival submissions, the learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and gone through the material on record, it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that at the time of transaction of sale of land in question neither Dharuhera Municipality came into existence nor the Bhiwadi Municipality and the land sold was not part of any municipality area for the purposes of capital asset as defined under section 2(14) of the Act. We, therefore, do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, do not see any merit in this appeal of the department.

8. In other appeals i.e. I.T.A.No. 947 & 948/JP/2011, the facts are identical as were involved in the case of ITO Vs. Shri Jagmal Singh in I.T.No. 946/JP/2011, therefore, our findings given in the former part of this order shall apply mutatis mutandis for these two appeals also.

9. In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 31 st January, 2014). Sd/- sd/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 31 st January, 2014. vr/- Copy to:

1. The Appellant

2. The Respondent

3. The ld.CIT

4. The CIT(A)

5. The D.R By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Jaipur.