2014 (5) TMI 320 - HC - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 10(37) - Whether the section require that the assessee should himself carry out the agricultural activities on the land - Assessee contended that as per section 10(37) r.w.s. 45(5), no capital gain tax was payable as also allowed by ITAT - Held that - Following Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Amrutbhai S. Patel 2013 (5) TMI 449 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - CIT (A) held against the assessee was staying away from the agricultural land and that he was otherwise engaged in a business - neither of the two facts, either in isolation or cumulatively, would be sufficient to hold that the land was not being used for agricultural purposes by the assessee - Merely because the assessee was not residing close to the land or was also pursuing some other business would not by itself be sufficient to hold that the land was not used for agricultural purposes by the assessee - The Tribunal had recorded that in the earlier years, the assessee had declared agricultural income, which was also accepted by the Revenue no substantial question of law arises for consideration Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under section 10(37) and section 45(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Exemption eligibility under section 10(37) for capital gains arising from the transfer of agricultural land.
3. Consideration of conditions for exemption under section 10(37) regarding agricultural land usage.

Analysis:
1. The High Court considered the appeal challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the treatment of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) due to compulsory land acquisition. The primary issue was whether the Tribunal erred in exempting the LTCG under section 10(37) while contravening section 45(5) and without assessing the Assessing Officer's findings. The Court examined the conditions of section 10(37) and the Assessing Officer's assessment, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling all conditions for exemption eligibility.

2. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer treated the additional compensation received by the respondent as capital gain under section 45(5) of the Income Tax Act. Despite the CIT (Appeals) agreeing with this treatment, the Tribunal's order granting exemption under section 10(37) was challenged in the present appeal. The Court referred to a previous judgment in a similar case where it was held that exemption under section 10(37) is available even if the assessee is not directly involved in agricultural operations, provided other conditions are met.

3. The Court addressed the issue of whether the assessee fulfilled the conditions for exemption under section 10(37), particularly regarding the agricultural land's usage. It was argued that personal cultivation, as recognized in agricultural land tenancy laws, includes cultivation through hired laborers or family members. The Court emphasized that mere absence from the land or involvement in other businesses does not negate agricultural land usage. The Tribunal's consideration of the assessee's past declaration of agricultural income supported the conclusion that the land was indeed used for agricultural purposes, leading to the dismissal of the tax appeal in favor of the respondent assessee.