2013 (5) TMI 412 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the land was agricultural in nature or not - The Tribunal held that the view taken by the CIT (A) that the lands in question were situated beyond 8 kms from the outer limits of the municipal corporation of Gurgaon, could not be faulted - Held that - The Tribunal noted that the AO had made the disallowance merely on the ground that there was the possibility of a shorter distance, which would be less than 8 kms from the outer limits of the municipal corporation. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not doubted the nature of the land being for agriculture. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal rejected the plea of the departmental representative that the matter be restored to the file of the CIT (Appeals) for verification of the fact as to whether the lands were agricultural in nature or not. No interference is called for with the impugned order of the Tribunal

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeals challenging common order on assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 regarding short term capital gain on sale of land beyond municipal limits of Gurgaon, with the question of land being agricultural in nature.

Analysis:
1. The appeals raised common issues against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding short term capital gain on the sale of land at village Hayatpur, district Gurgaon, beyond municipal limits of Gurgaon for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Two appeals pertained to Smt. Manju Bansal and the other two to Smt. Nirmal Bansal.

2. The assessing officer added Rs. 2,34,70,697 as short term capital gain due to the land sale, based on the provision of section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, questioning the distance of land from municipal limits. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, relying on certificates from Tehsildar and District Town Planner of Gurgaon certifying the land's distance beyond 8 kms.

3. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, stating the lands were beyond 8 kms from the municipal limits of Gurgaon. The revenue's counsel argued that the Tribunal did not address whether the lands were agricultural, a prerequisite for exemption from capital gains tax.

4. The Tribunal correctly addressed the nature of the land, noting the assessing officer's concern was distance-related, not questioning the agricultural nature. Citing National Thermal Power Corporation Limited v. CIT, the Tribunal had no basis to examine the agricultural aspect as it was not doubted by the assessing officer.

5. The Supreme Court decision in NTPC Ltd. clarified that the Tribunal can address legal questions arising from factual findings by tax authorities. As the assessing officer did not dispute the agricultural nature of the land, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the revenue's plea for further examination.

6. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, concluding no substantial legal question arose for consideration. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order.