2016 (7) TMI 1268 - AT - Income Tax

Sale consideration taxation - business income or capital gains - Held that - The intention of the assessee for applying the use of land for NA is clearly established from the fact that the AUDA approved its plan for establishing a show room/work shop at the impugned land. Moreover the assessee has been consistently showing the said piece of land as a capital asset in its block of assets in the balance sheet. The revenue authorities have simply dismissed the contentions of the assessee without bringing any corroborative evidence on record. If the revenue alleges that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade then the onus was clearly upon them to justify their stand which the lower authorities have completely failed. On the contrary the facts on record clearly show that the balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the assessee. Considering the fact of Automobiles Dealership with the sequence of events following since the award of dealership of MBIL in 1997 we have no hesitation to hold that the sale consideration has to be taxed under head capital gains and cannot treat the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade. We accordingly set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O to treat the surplus under the head capital gains as returned by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tax treatment of amount received from sale of land - Capital gains or business income
2. Disallowance of cost of improvement

Analysis:

Issue 1: Tax treatment of amount received from sale of land - Capital gains or business income

The appellant challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the taxing of an amount received from the sale of land as business income instead of long-term capital gains. The appellant argued that the amount should be taxed as long-term capital gains as declared in the I.T.R. The Tribunal noted that the revenue authorities treated the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade based on the belief that the appellant intended to make a profit from the sale. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant, an established Automobiles Dealer, purchased the land for the expansion of its dealership and had consistently shown the land as a capital asset. The Tribunal concluded that the sale consideration should be taxed under the head of capital gains and not as business income. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to treat the surplus under the head of capital gains as returned by the assessee. Ground no. 1 was allowed in favor of the appellant.

Issue 2: Disallowance of cost of improvement

The appellant also raised a grievance regarding the disallowance of the cost of improvement out of the total claim made. The Tribunal observed that the First Appellate Authority did not adjudicate upon this grievance raised by the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside this issue to the files of the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to decide this grievance as per the grounds of appeal. Ground no. 2 was treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed in part for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the tax treatment of the amount received from the sale of land, directing it to be treated as long-term capital gains. The issue of disallowance of the cost of improvement was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for further consideration.