9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the income derived by the assessees from the sale of agricultural land can be considered as income from agriculture and therefore not taxable as capital gains. 2. The applicability of retrospective amendments to the Income-tax Act, 1961, in determining the taxability of capital gains from agricultural land. Summary: Issue 1: Taxability of Capital Gains from Agricultural Land Both income-tax applications raised the common question of whether the income derived by the assessees from the sale of agricultural land can be considered as income from agriculture and thus not taxable as capital gains. The Tribunal, relying on the High Court's decision in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar [1981] 128 ITR 87, held that the capital gains were not taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they constitute agricultural income. The Tribunal declined to refer the questions to the High Court, asserting that the issue was covered by the aforementioned decision. Issue 2: Retrospective Amendments and Their Applicability The relevant provisions of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were discussed, particularly the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1970, which excluded land situated within the jurisdiction of a municipality from the definition of "agricultural land." The constitutional validity of this amendment was challenged and upheld in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar, where it was held that capital gains from the sale of agricultural land would constitute revenue derived from agricultural land and thus come within the definition of "agricultural income." However, section 2(1A) defining "agricultural income" was amended by the Finance Act, 1989, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1970, adding an Explanation that revenue derived from land shall not include any income arising from the transfer of any land referred to in section 2(14)(iii). This amendment was not in existence when the Tribunal decided not to refer the question but is now in effect. The court examined whether the High Court should consider the retrospective amendment while deciding an application u/s 256(2). It was contended that the Tribunal's refusal to refer the question was correct based on the law existing at that time. However, the court held that when a law is amended retrospectively, the High Court must apply such law as if it were in force at all material times, even while deciding an application u/s 256(2). The court disagreed with the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Addl. CIT v. M. J. Devda [1977] 109 ITR 484, which held that the correctness of the Tribunal's decision should be judged based on the law in force when the Tribunal rendered its decision. The court emphasized that full effect must be given to retrospective amendments, and the High Court is bound to consider the law as amended retrospectively. Conclusion: The applications were allowed, and the rules were made absolute, directing the Tribunal to frame and refer the questions of law to the High Court, considering the retrospective amendment to section 2(1A) by the Finance Act, 1989.
|
