2010 (10) TMI 1082 - AT - Income Tax

Chargeability of capital gain on sale of an agricultural land - nature of land sold - whether impugned land fall outside the radius of 8 kms. from the municipality limit of the Visakhapatnam Municipality? - Agricultural land or not? - HELD THAT - Undisputedly the impugned land was initially situated beyond the 8 kms. from the municipality limit of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. But later on, on incorporation of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, it falls within the 8 kms. from the municipal limit. But no notification as required u/s 2(14)(iii)(b) of the I.T. Act was issued in the Official Gazette by the Central Government. This issue was examined by us in the case of SMT. C. GIRIJA VERSUS ACIT 2010 (9) TMI 1133 - ITAT VISHAKAPATNAM in which we have given a categorical finding that to bring a land within the purview of clause (b) of section 2(14)(iii), the Central Government is required to issue a notification in the Official Gazette and without a notification a land falls within the 8 kms. from the local limit of any municipality would not cease to be an agricultural land. Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Chargeability of capital gain on the sale of agricultural land.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Visakhapatnam dealt with appeals by the revenue against orders of the CIT(A) regarding the chargeability of capital gain on the sale of agricultural land. The case revolved around co-owners selling agricultural land during the relevant assessment year. The primary issue was whether the land, initially situated beyond 8 km from the municipal limit, ceased to be agricultural land after falling within the 8 km limit of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation without a fresh notification as required by the IT Act.

The assessee contended that in the absence of a notification by the Central Government as per section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the IT Act, the land should still be considered agricultural. The CIT(A) analyzed the relevant provisions and concluded that without a fresh notification considering the extended municipal limits, the deeming provision would only apply with reference to the city/town limits at the time of the original notification. The Tribunal concurred with this interpretation, emphasizing the necessity of a central government notification for determining the status of the land.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the term "municipality" in the context of the notification and clarified that the renaming of municipalities upon extension did not alter the classification of the land. The Tribunal also considered the jurisdictional situation of the land, highlighting that administrative control and revenue collection by the Bheemunipatnam Mandal indicated the land's classification as rural agricultural land.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision based on the requirement of a central government notification to alter the status of the land from agricultural to urban. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal provisions, judicial precedents, and the necessity of official notifications in determining the taxability of agricultural land.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal requirements for determining the chargeability of capital gain on the sale of agricultural land, emphasizing the significance of central government notifications in altering the classification of land and the adherence to relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents.