9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (11) TMI 475 - AT - Income TaxAgriculture Income - Dis-allowance treating it as Income from other Source - Held That - As assessee submitted that cultivation is carried on said land offered inspection of land produced certificate issued by the VRO Certificate same has to be relied upon and it is not possible to reject the same without examining the deponent. Thus agricultural income declared by the assessee is to be accepted as agricultural income only - Decided in favor of assessee. Computation of capital gains treating the same as non-agricultural land - Revenue contended it to be capital asset - Held That - Mere fact that the land in question was agricultural land cannot be a ground to claim for exemption u/s 2(14) as the land is urban land situated within the local limits of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Therefore land in question is capital asset liable for income-tax. See CIT v. Bolla Ramaiah (1987 (3) TMI 8 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT) - Decided in favor of revenue Exemption under 54B - Revenue opined that mere payment of advance does not entitle the assessee for relief under S.54B transaction to be completed within 2 years - Held That - Case remanded back to verify whether the assessee has purchased the agricultural lands within a period of two years so as to qualify for relief under S.54B of the Act
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of agricultural income. 2. Assessment of long-term capital gains on the sale of land. 3. Disallowance of claim for relief under Section 54B of the Income-tax Act. 4. Charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Agricultural Income: The primary issue was whether the agricultural income declared by the assessee should be treated as non-agricultural income. The assessee had declared agricultural income of Rs. 8,400 for the assessment year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim due to a lack of evidence supporting agricultural activities and treated it as income from other sources. The CIT(A) confirmed this view. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided Pahani Patrika, a slab pass-book from the Electricity Board, and an affidavit from the Village Revenue Officer (VRO) indicating agricultural operations. The Tribunal concluded that the agricultural income declared by the assessee should be accepted as agricultural income, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181, which held that affidavits not cross-examined cannot be challenged. 2. Assessment of Long-Term Capital Gains on Sale of Land: The assessee sold agricultural land and claimed that no capital gains arose from the transaction as the land was agricultural and not a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. The AO disagreed, treating the land as a capital asset and assessing long-term capital gains. The Tribunal noted that the land, although used for agricultural purposes, was situated within 8 KM of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits, making it urban land and thus a capital asset. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision but adjusted the cost of acquisition to Rs. 30,000 per acre instead of Rs. 10,000. 3. Disallowance of Claim for Relief under Section 54B: The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54B for the purchase of new agricultural land using the capital gains. The AO denied this claim on two grounds: the land sold was not agricultural, and mere payment of advance for new land did not qualify for exemption. The Tribunal found merit in the AO's reasoning but noted that if the assessee completed the purchase within two years, as required by Section 54B, they would be entitled to the exemption. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for verification of whether the purchase was completed within the stipulated period. 4. Charging of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C: The assessee contested the charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C, arguing that the department had seized cash. The Tribunal found the levy of interest to be consequential and mandatory, thus rejecting the assessee's grounds on this issue. Additional Appeals: For the other appeals concerning assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 and 2006-07, the Tribunal followed its decision for the assessment year 2008-09, accepting the agricultural income declared by the assessee and remanding the issue of Section 54B exemption to the AO for verification. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes. Conclusion: Out of the eight appeals, ITA Nos. 1268 to 1271/Hyd/2011 were allowed, while the other four appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal provided detailed reasoning for accepting agricultural income, treating the land as a capital asset, and remanding the Section 54B exemption issue for further verification. The interest under Sections 234B and 234C was upheld as mandatory.
|
