1. We find it convenient to dispose of this bunch of ten cross-appeals by the assessees and the revenue pertaining to respective assessment years as shown in the caption of the order, by this consolidated order.

2. The assessees before us are three HUFs, the Kartas whereof are brothers. The assessments have been framed by treating the sale of land declared by the assessees as adventure in the nature of trade and not as sale of capital asset declared by the assessee. The quantum of income assessed is also in dispute.

3. The background, facts and the dispute leading to the present controversy are identical in respect of all the appeals of three assessees herein. We therefore, consider it appropriate to take up for consideration the controversy in relation to I.T.A. No. 1409/Delhi/05 pertaining to Ram Saroop Saini, HUF. The return of income was filed declaring income of Rs. 2,36,790 plus agricultural income of Rs. 55,400 for the assessment year 2001-02. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee HUF along with other two assessees had got approved their common agricultural land situated near Swami Uma Bharti Public School, Rewari into a Town Planning Scheme No. 9 (in short TPS) by paying development charges to the Municipal Committee, Rewari. After converting the agricultural land into non-agricultural land, the assessee started selling plots in smaller denomination starting from the assessment year 1994-95 onwards. In the return of income filed for the assessment year starting from 1994-95, the assessee has declared income from the sale of land as income assessable under the head ‘Capital gain’. Similarly, in the instant case also, the assessee declared its income from sale of land under the head ‘Capital gain’. The Assessing Officer, however, has treated the transactions as adventure in the nature of trade. The CIT(A) has since upheld the stand of the Assessing Officer and hence the present appeal before us.

4. Before us, the first and foremost grievance of the assessee is that the income-tax authorities have erred in holding that the impugned sale of land was in the nature of trade and not a transaction assessable under the head ‘Capital gain’. Needless to point out, if the activity of sale of land undertaken by the assessee is held to be adventure in the nature of trade, the income therefrom is assessable under the head ‘Income from business’, whereas if it is held as a sale of a capital asset simpliciter, the income therefrom is assessable under the head ‘Income from capital gain’.

5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee wherein is placed the copies of returns of income for various assessment years starting from assessment years 1994-95 to 2001-02 to demonstrate that in the past in the case of this assessee, the income has been treated as falling under the head ‘Capital gains’. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee inherited the impugned agricultural lands in the year 1980 and has been declaring agricultural income therefrom regularly. The ld. Counsel also submitted that a portion of the agricultural lands owned by the assessee was acquired by HUDA and the gain therefrom has been accepted by the department as assessable under the head ‘Capital gain’. The ld. Counsel pointed out that that in the instant cases, sale was of lands which were falling within the extended Municipal limits of Rewari. Therefore, in order to maximize the sale realization, the assessee deemed it fit to pay the development charges to the Municipal Committee and thereafter sell the plots of land in small pieces. He emphasized that there was no attributes of adventure in the nature of trade associated with the impugned sale transactions. The ld. counsel relied upon various decisions viz. CIT v. Premji Gopalji [1978] 113 ITR 785 (Guj.), ITO v. Smt. Premlata Manohar [1999] 69 ITD 248 (Delhi), M.V. Chandrashekhar v. Dy. CIT [2004] 91 ITD 543 (Bang.), Smt. N.