2012 (10) TMI 603 - AT - Income Tax

Capital Gain Sale of agricultural land Land sold by the assessee fell beyond 8 KMs of any municipality or cantonment - Held that - As If the assessees are able to show that agricultural activities were carried out, and the intended purpose was to use the land for agriculture. In such a way that a safe conclusion can be drawn that the nature of the land was agricultural, then the assessees cannot be considered as liable for capital gains tax on sale thereof. The onus of the assessees to show that the land was agricultural in nature. We, therefore, set aside the orders of authorities below and remit the issue back to the file of the A.O.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition of long term capital gains for the sale of land
- Classification of land as agricultural for tax purposes
- Discrepancies in revenue records and certificates provided by the parties

Analysis:
1. Addition of Long Term Capital Gains: The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on long term capital gains for the sale of land, which was then deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) based on the assessees' appeals. The A.O. contended that the land was not agricultural based on various factors, while the assessees argued that the land was classified as agricultural in revenue records and hence exempt from capital gains tax.

2. Classification of Land as Agricultural: The assessees provided certificates and records indicating that the land was agricultural in nature, including a VAO certificate and website printouts. The CIT(Appeals) held that the nature of the land, not the agricultural activities carried out, determined its classification as agricultural. The A.O. disputed this classification based on different records and lack of evidence of agricultural activities by the assessees.

3. Discrepancies in Records: The Revenue argued that the land was not used for agricultural activities based on reports from the Income-tax Department and the jurisdictional VAO. Discrepancies in names on revenue records were also highlighted. The assessees maintained that the land was agricultural as per revenue records and Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, and presented additional records to support their claim.

4. Judgment and Remittance: The Tribunal found discrepancies in the assessment and ordered a fresh consideration by the A.O. based on the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court for determining the nature of land. The burden of proof was placed on the assessees to establish the agricultural nature of the land. The matter was remitted back to the A.O. for a detailed re-assessment in accordance with the law.

5. Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, while the cross-objections of the assessee were dismissed as they became infructuous. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the evidence and compliance with legal standards in determining the tax implications of the land sale.