2016 (11) TMI 1407 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of land sold - location of the property - agricultural lands - capital gains - Held that - The assessee produced the copy of the revenue records. In the revenue records, the lands in question were recorded as agricultural lands . The survey report shows that the lands in Survey No.67/22, 67/8C 1D16A, 67/8C 1D16C, 67/8C 1D16F and 67/8C1D19 were categorized as Dry Well/Borewell irrigation Class-II . As per the photographs enclosed alongwith the DVO s report, the assessee was growing casurina trees, sapotta trees, coconut trees and mango trees. In a nutshell, the DVO s report also supports that the assessee was using the lands for agricultural purposes and carrying on agricultural operations. DVO is departmental valuer referred by the Assessing Officer for valuation who has personally visited and satisfied that the lands were used for agricultural purposes. Thus we hold that the lands sold were agricultural lands not being capital asset and therefore, confirm the order of the Ld.CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the land as agricultural land.
2. Determination of the applicability of capital gains tax on the sale of the land.
3. Evaluation of evidence supporting agricultural use of the land.
4. Relevance of distance from municipal limits for tax exemption.
5. Consideration of previous legal precedents and judgments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Land as Agricultural Land:
The primary issue was whether the land sold by the assessee could be classified as agricultural land, which would exempt it from capital gains tax under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed the land was agricultural, citing the presence of trees and vegetables and providing revenue records and certificates from the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) to support this claim. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] agreed, noting that the land had been used for cultivation and was classified as agricultural in revenue records.

2. Determination of the Applicability of Capital Gains Tax:
The Assessing Officer (AO) had classified the land as a capital asset, arguing that no agricultural income was reported from 2006-07 to 2011-12 and the land was sold to a real estate developer. The AO presumed the land was not used for agricultural purposes. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the land was indeed used for agricultural purposes, supported by evidence such as the Adangal records and the Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report, which showed the presence of various trees and agricultural activities.

3. Evaluation of Evidence Supporting Agricultural Use of the Land:
The CIT(A) and the Tribunal examined various pieces of evidence, including:
- Sale deeds describing the land as agricultural.
- Adangal records showing cultivation of Mango, Coconut, and Casuarina trees.
- Certificates from the VAO confirming the land's agricultural use and its distance from municipal limits.
- The DVO's report and photographs showing the presence of agricultural activities and structures like thatched roof shelters for farm workers.

4. Relevance of Distance from Municipal Limits for Tax Exemption:
The CIT(A) noted that the land was located more than 8 kilometers from the nearest notified municipality, fulfilling the condition under Section 2(14)(iii) for exemption from capital gains tax. The Tribunal confirmed this finding, emphasizing that the land's classification and use as agricultural land were consistent with the statutory requirements for tax exemption.

5. Consideration of Previous Legal Precedents and Judgments:
The AO and the Departmental Representative (DR) relied on previous judgments, such as the Supreme Court's decision in the case of VWT vs Officer in charge (Court of Wards) Paigah and the Tribunal's decision in Aboo Bucker. However, the Tribunal distinguished these cases based on the facts, noting that in the present case, substantial evidence supported the agricultural use of the land. The Tribunal concluded that the land was not a capital asset and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exempt it from capital gains tax.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming that the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land and not a capital asset. The Tribunal's decision was based on substantial evidence of agricultural use, compliance with statutory distance requirements, and a detailed evaluation of relevant legal precedents. This judgment underscores the importance of factual evidence in determining the classification of land for tax purposes.

← Previous Next →