2013 (9) TMI 1077 - HC - Income Tax

Income from undisclosed sources - undisclosed bank account - Claim allowed in favour of assessee as relyin on CIT v. Rajshibhai Meramanbhai Odedara 2013 (5) TMI 884 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT Treatment to land in question - as agricultural land and/or capital asset - Held that - When the land in question was an agricultural land which was situated beyond 8 Kms from the municipal limits no error has been committed by the learned tribunal in not considering the land in question as capital asset . We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue and confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting addition on account of long term capital gain and on account of short term gain.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the deposits made in the bank accounts of the assessee were fully explained, leading to the deletion of the addition made on account of income from undisclosed sources.
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in reversing the action of the AO in adopting the sale consideration of the land and determining the capital gains.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a search action under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, leading to the assessment of the assessee's income for the year. The AO made additions on account of undisclosed sources and capital gains from the sale of land. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, deleting the additions, stating that the land sold was agricultural and not a capital asset. The Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the land sold to a non-agriculturist should be considered a capital asset. However, the court held that the land, being agricultural and situated beyond 8 Kms from the municipal limits, did not qualify as a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act. The court cited the revenue records and certificates provided by the assessee to support the agricultural nature of the land, upholding the Tribunal's decision to delete the additions.

Issue 2:
The revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in not considering the land as a capital asset due to the sale to a non-agriculturist. However, the court reiterated that the land's agricultural nature, as evidenced by revenue records and certificates, exempted it from being classified as a capital asset. The court found no error in the Tribunal's decision to delete the additions based on the agricultural status of the land. Consequently, both proposed questions of law were answered against the revenue, leading to the dismissal of the Tax Appeal.

In conclusion, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the land's agricultural classification exempted it from being treated as a capital asset for tax purposes. The court dismissed the revenue's appeal and affirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO, concluding that the land's nature as agricultural land beyond municipal limits precluded it from being taxed as a capital asset.