2012 (12) TMI 520 - AT - Income Tax

Chargeability to Capital Gain Tax - Valaution - nature to two different transaction - land development agreement as well as sale of developed land - Conversion of Agricultural land into Housing Plots - held that - When the Assessing Officer himself has treated two agreements entered into by the assessee as two distinct and separate transactions he was not correct in taking the indexed cost of acquisition the purchase value of the land in 1980 and 1989. While computing capital gains arising out of transfer of 15% interest in developed land to M/s Koncept Nirman Pvt. Limited in April 2006. In our view the CIT (A) was right in holding that the cost of 15% of the right in developed land should be taken to be the value on which the SRO has calculated stamp duty of Rs.5, 41, 675/- The asset sold by the assessee to M/s Koncept Nirman Pvt. Limited is not the same which was given to the developer under the development agreement. Once the agricultural land was transferred to the developer under the development agreement it lost its character as agricultural land. It is also evident from the materials on record that the intention of the parties was never to carry on any agricultural activity but to develop the land to residential/saleable plots. The nature and character of the land has also been changed from agricultural to residential by the order passed by the HUDA in its G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 21-9-2005 prior to the sale of 15% right and interest to M/s Koncept Nirman Pvt. Limited in April 2006. That apart the assessee himself in the written submissions has submitted that no agricultural activity has taken place from the assessment year 2000-01 to 2005-06. On consideration of these facts it cannot be said that the capital asset sold to M/s. Koncept Nirman Pvt. Limited in April 2006 under the sale deed is the same as the land which was given for development under the development agreement and therefore not chargeable to capital gains tax. All the appeals by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of cost of acquisition for 15% of the developed land.
2. Distinction between the development agreement and the subsequent sale deed for capital gains purposes.
3. Taxability of agricultural land transfer under capital gains.
4. Compliance with CIT (A)'s directions in computing capital gains.
5. Consideration of additional expenditure and exemptions under sections 54B and 54F.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Cost of Acquisition for 15% of Developed Land:
The CIT (A) directed to adopt the cost of 85% of land transferred via the first development agreement as the cost of acquisition for the 15% land sold via the second sale deed. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially computed the cost of acquisition based on the purchase value from 1980 and 1989, which the CIT (A) found incorrect. The CIT (A) directed the AO to use the value on which stamp duty of Rs. 5,41,675 was paid as the cost of acquisition for the 15% right in the developed land. The Tribunal upheld this approach, allowing re-examination of the actual stamp duty paid, which the assessee claimed was Rs. 6,37,250.

2. Distinction Between Development Agreement and Subsequent Sale Deed:
The AO treated the development agreement dated 31-1-2001 and the sale deed dated 20-4-2006 as distinct transactions. The first transaction involved transferring agricultural land to the developer, not subject to capital gains. The second transaction involved selling the 15% right in the developed land, which was considered a capital asset and thus subject to capital gains tax. The Tribunal confirmed that the nature of the asset transferred in the second transaction was not agricultural land but a right in the developed land, thus subject to capital gains.

3. Taxability of Agricultural Land Transfer Under Capital Gains:
The assessee argued that the land transferred was agricultural and situated beyond 8KM of municipal limits, thus not subject to capital gains. The AO and CIT (A) accepted that the initial transfer of agricultural land in 2001 was not subject to capital gains. However, the subsequent sale of the 15% right in the developed land in 2006 was taxable as it was no longer agricultural land. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the land's character had changed, and no agricultural activity had taken place from 2000-01 to 2005-06.

4. Compliance with CIT (A)'s Directions in Computing Capital Gains:
The assessee contended that the AO did not comply with the CIT (A)'s directions regarding the cost of acquisition and the consideration of additional expenditure and exemptions under sections 54B and 54F. The Tribunal noted that any non-compliance with CIT (A)'s directions could be raised before the appropriate forum and was not a matter for the Tribunal's consideration.

5. Consideration of Additional Expenditure and Exemptions Under Sections 54B and 54F:
The assessee claimed deductions for expenditures of Rs. 98,00,000 related to the transfer and sought exemptions under sections 54B and 54F. The Tribunal noted that these issues were not raised at the assessment or first appellate stage and thus could not be entertained at this stage as they required investigation into basic facts.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee. It upheld the CIT (A)'s decision on the cost of acquisition for the 15% right in the developed land and confirmed that the subsequent sale was subject to capital gains tax. The Tribunal also noted that any issues regarding compliance with CIT (A)'s directions should be raised before the appropriate forum.