JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad passed in ITA No. 231/AHD/2016 for AY 2012-13 by which, the learned has allowed the said appeal preferred by the assessee and has observed and held that the sale consideration of land of Rs. 24,13,24,783/- to be treated as capital gain instead of treating it as business income as held by the AO and learned CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the issue of sale consideration of land of Rs. 24,13,24,783/- to be treated as capital gain and thereby set aside the issue to the file of the CIT(A)?" 2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: "2.1. That the assessee who at the relevant time was having a dealership agreement with Mercedes Benz filed the return of income for AY 2012-13. The assessee company sold the property which was shown in the block assets for the amount of Rs. 25,22,52,000/-. The assessee shown long term capital gain of Rs. 22,78,50,090/- on sale of such land after applying cost indexation and claiming improvement cost of Rs. 47,47,534/-. That the AO did not accept the claim of the assessee, more particularly, claim of the assessee to treat Rs. 24,13,24,783/- as capital gain on sale of the land and as the AO was of the opinion that when the assessee purchased the land, the intention was to get profit on sale and the transaction had all the elements of business transactions. Consequently, learned AO treated the amount of Rs. 24,13,24,783/- as assessee inform from business and add to the total income of the assessee. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the AO treating the income at Rs. 24,13,24,783/- received by way of sale from land transaction as income from business, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the AO. 2.3. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the AO treating the income at Rs. 24,13,24,783/- received by way of sale from land transaction as income from business, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the AO. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the learned ITAT and by impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has set aside order passed by the learned CIT(A) as well as AO in treating the amount received by the assessee on sale of the land as income from business. 2.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT, the Revenue has preferred present appeal with the following proposed question of law. "Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the issue of sale consideration of land of Rs. 24,13,24,783/- to be treated as capital gain and thereby set aside the issue to the file of the CIT(A)?" 3. Shri Manish Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue has vehemently submitted that no evidence was produced by the assessee in support of his case that the assessee purchased the land for expansion and to continue dealership agreement with the Mercedes Benz. It is submitted that therefore, when the land was converted from agricultural to non agricultural land and thereafter the assessee submitted the plans for showroom as well as office (as observed by the learned CIT(A)) and thereafter the assessee sold the said land by plotting the same, the intention of the assessee was very clear to get profit on sale of the said land. It is submitted that the learned CIT(A), therefore, giving cogent reasons rightly confirmed the order passed by the AO treating the amount of Rs. 24,13,24,783/- received by the assessee on sale of the land as income from the business, the same was not required to be interfered with by the learned Tribunal. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present Appeal. 4. Heard Shri Manish Bhatt, learned counsel for the revenue at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the assessee was already having a dealership with the Mercedes Benz since 1997. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present Appeal. 4. Heard Shri Manish Bhatt, learned counsel for the revenue at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the assessee was already having a dealership with the Mercedes Benz since 1997. That thereafter, the assessee purchased the land on S.G. Highway Road, Ahmedabad in the year 2003, which according to the assessee was insisted as per the requirement of Mercedes Benz and to continue dealership with the Mercedes Benz. That thereafter, assessee purchased the land on SG Highway Road on 1.12.2003 for sale consideration of Rs. 95,92,500/-. That therefore, the assessee got the said land converted from agricultural to non agricultural use in the year 2005 and thereafter obtained necessary development permission from the AUDA (competent authority) for construction of the showroom etc. It appears that thereafter the dispute arose between the assessee and Mercedes Benz and therefore, the dealership with the Mercedes Benz came to be discontinued in the year 2009. That thereafter, in the year 2011, the assessee sold the land and received the sale consideration which was claimed by it as a capital gain. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that when the assessee purchased the land in the year 2003, the intention was to purchase the land to make profit by selling it. The aforesaid circumstances would suggest that the land was purchased for showroom etc. As such, the assessee hold the land for approximately 8 years and thereafter sold the same for the reasons stated herein above. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the learned Tribunal has held the income of Rs. 24,13,24,783/- received by the sale of land as capital gain as claimed by the assessee and not as income from business as held by the AO confirmed by the learned CIT(A), it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error, which calls for the interference of this Court. No question of law arise. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal fails and same deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.