2012 (10) TMI 250 - HC - Income Tax

Agricultural land - income on sale of said land consisting of carved out plots - Long Term Capital Gain v/s income from business and profession - Held that - The said asset being held by the assessee cannot be said to be a business asset and its sale in small plots of land to different purchasers is not adventure in the nature of trade, in the absence of the assessee having floated the same or having developed its land for the purposes other than agricultural land. Further for converting the usage, prior permission is required from the authorities and in the absence of any permission being obtained by the assessee from PUDA authorities in respect of the land sold, merely because the land is sold in small plots to persons who intended its residential use, does not change the nature of land sold in the hands of the assessee and its taxability. As assessed by ITAT that the said land was part of notified forest area where admittedly no other activities except agricultural, if allowed, could be carried out & the Girdawari of the landholdings of the assessee proves the stand of the assessee that it was agricultural land and also the notification issued for the urban usage/non-agricultural activities certifies that prior to its notification the said land was used for agricultural purposes. The land being registered in Land Revenue Records as Agricultural land, then there is no basis for holding the said land and as not agricultural land. The gain arising on the sale of the aforesaid agricultural land cannot be taxed as income from business as revenue was unable to show that the activity undertaken by the assessee was an adventure in the nature of trade - in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Determination of whether the land sale constituted Long Term Capital Gain or income from business and profession.
2. Consideration of whether the land was agricultural in nature despite urban usage notification.
3. Assessment of whether the land sale activity was a business venture or capital gain.

Issue 1:
The primary issue in this case was to ascertain whether the sale of land resulting in Long Term Capital Gain was correctly classified as such or should have been considered income from business and profession. The appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenged the Tribunal's decision on this matter. The Tribunal concluded that the nature of the land sold was agricultural, as supported by various factors including the land being part of a notified forest area where only agricultural activities were allowed. The Tribunal further emphasized that the land was registered as agricultural in Land Revenue Records. The judgment highlighted that the sale of the land in small plots to different purchasers did not transform it into a business asset, especially since the land had not been developed for purposes other than agriculture. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of the assessee floating or developing the land for non-agricultural use, thus supporting the classification of the income as Long Term Capital Gain.

Issue 2:
Another significant issue was whether the land in question could still be considered agricultural land despite a notification for urban usage/non-agricultural activities. The CIT(A) noted that the land was being used for agricultural purposes and was part of forest land where only agricultural activities were permissible. The Tribunal concurred with this assessment, emphasizing that the land was established as agricultural based on various factors, including its historical usage and registration in Land Revenue Records as agricultural land. The judgment referenced precedents and legal principles to support the conclusion that the land's character as agricultural remained unchanged despite the notification for urban usage/non-agricultural activities. The Tribunal's decision upheld the classification of the land as agricultural, leading to the income derived from its sale being treated as Long Term Capital Gain.

Issue 3:
The core issue revolved around determining whether the sale of the land by the assessee constituted a business activity or capital gain. The judgment highlighted that the character of the receipt from the land sale depended on the intention behind the investment and subsequent sale. Factors such as the purpose of acquiring the land, its usage over time, and the absence of development for non-agricultural purposes played a crucial role in classifying the income. The Tribunal concluded that the sale of the land in small plots without development for non-agricultural activities did not amount to an adventure in the nature of trade. The judgment referenced legal precedents to support this conclusion, emphasizing that the absence of concrete facts showing the land as non-agricultural justified treating the income as Long Term Capital Gain. The decision underscored that the revenue failed to establish the land sale activity as an adventure in the nature of trade, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the High Court in determining the classification of income derived from the sale of land and the characterization of the land itself amidst urban usage notifications and agricultural land considerations.

← Previous Next →