2012 (3) TMI 151 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the land,subject-matter of sale is agricultural land as on the date of sale without taking into consideration the conversion of land to non-agricultural purpose - held that -the land retained its agricultural character till the date of the order permitting non-agricultural use and thereafter it is not an agricultural land and, therefore, can be treated as capital asset. whether the land should be treated as agricultural land and the same is exempt from capital gains in view of section 2(14) - held that sale consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs, is not a transaction involving transfer of a capital asset and, therefore, no need to bring the income referable to the capital gains part of the transfer of the asset.

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of whether the land is agricultural or non-agricultural at the time of sale.
2. Treatment of land as agricultural for capital gains exemption despite conversion to non-agricultural use.
3. Consideration of land within urban agglomeration as a capital asset.
4. Application of previous tribunal ruling on conversion date for land classification.

Issue 1:
The appeal concerns the classification of land as agricultural or non-agricultural at the time of sale. The Revenue challenges the findings of the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal, arguing that the land was converted for non-agricultural use as stated in the sale deed. The appellant contends that the relief granted to the assessee disregarded the conversion status mentioned in the sale deed.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolves around whether the land, despite being converted to non-agricultural use, can still be treated as agricultural due to continued cultivation until the date of sale, thus exempting it from capital gains tax. The Revenue asserts that the proximity of the land to Bangalore city makes it a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act.

Issue 3:
Another question raised is whether the land's location within 8 kilometers of Bangalore city automatically qualifies it as a capital asset, irrespective of its agricultural or non-agricultural status. The Revenue argues that the tax liability determined by the Assessing Officer should not have been altered by the appellate authorities based on this criterion.

Issue 4:
The final issue pertains to the application of a previous tribunal ruling that considered the date of permission for land conversion as the decisive factor in determining its agricultural or non-agricultural status. The Tribunal in the present case followed this precedent, leading to the classification of the land as a capital asset post-conversion permission date.

In the judgment, the court examined the orders of the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal, which relied on a previous ruling regarding the date of permission for land conversion to decide its agricultural status. The court found no illegality in the decision and dismissed the appeal, stating that the reasoning applied by the Tribunal was not in violation of statutory provisions. The court concluded that since no illegality or statutory violation was found, there was no need to further analyze the legal questions raised in the appeal, resulting in its dismissal at the threshold.