2013 (2) TMI 770 - AT - Income Tax

Sale of land - agricultural land - held that - Assessing Officer has conclusively established that the lands sold by the assessee in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal for a consideration of ₹ 26,40,00,000/- were not agricultural in nature, but, on the other hand, they are nonagricultural land. Therefore, it definitely comes under the category of capital asset . Accordingly, the gains arising out of transfer of that capital asset is exigible to capital gains tax. When the basic nature of the land itself found to be nonagricultural, the arguments regarding status of the property, whether within metropolis or outside the limit of the metropolis, is irrelevant. A non-agricultural property, whether inside the municipality or outside the municipality or even in a remote village is a capital asset and transfer of the same may generate income liable for capital gains taxation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) on this point and restore the order of the Assessing Officer.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the lands sold by the assessee were agricultural in nature.
2. Whether the gains from the sale of the lands are subject to capital gains tax.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Lands Sold:
The primary issue was whether the lands sold by the assessee were agricultural in nature. The assessee claimed that the lands were agricultural based on their classification in revenue records and the fact that they were used for agricultural purposes at the time of purchase. The Assessing Officer (AO) conducted an investigation, including a site inspection and obtaining a sworn statement from the Village Administrative Officer (VAO). The VAO confirmed that no agricultural activities had been carried out on the lands for several years, and the area had become urbanized with significant real estate development and educational institutions. The AO concluded that the lands were not agricultural in nature and assessed a long-term capital gain of Rs. 26,16,06,595/-.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] accepted the assessee's contention that the lands were agricultural and canceled the capital gains assessment. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the classification in revenue records alone is not conclusive evidence of the land's nature. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, noting that the VAO's statement and the lack of agricultural activities for many years indicated that the lands had lost their agricultural character due to urbanization and real estate development.

2. Capital Gains Taxation:
Given the Tribunal's conclusion that the lands were not agricultural, the gains from their sale were subject to capital gains tax. The Tribunal emphasized that the nature of the land at the time of sale is crucial, and the historical classification as agricultural land does not suffice if the land's use has changed. The Tribunal also noted that the small amounts of agricultural income reported by the assessee in previous years did not reflect meaningful agricultural operations and were likely an attempt to maintain the appearance of agricultural use.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's assessment, concluding that the lands sold by the assessee were non-agricultural and the gains were subject to capital gains tax. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as they were rendered infructuous by the Tribunal's decision.

Order:
The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed. The order was pronounced on February 20, 2013, at Chennai.