9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 995 - AT - Income TaxAssessment of income from sale of land Benami property - Held that - The AO made the addition in the hands of the assessee on protective basis - CIT(A) directed the AO to treat it in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis on the basis of the Shri Man Mohan Raj Singhvi C/o Dinesh Bhandari & Co. Tax Consultants Versus The DCIT, Udaipur 2013 (6) TMI 401 - ITAT JODHPUR - CIT(A) rightly directed the AO to treat the income in the hands of the assessee from the sale of land on substantive basis. Profit and gains from business OR capital gain Whether the income earned by the assessee was a business income or capital gain - Held that - The assessee was not having any funds and raised the loans for purchasing the land - The motive of purchase was to earn the profit - The property was also not purchased for a longer period - assessee got the land converted into non-agricultural land and sold it immediately after conversion, the activity carried by the assessee was a business activity Relying upon Sawandas Devram Vs. CIT 1983 (9) TMI 57 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court - the real intention of the assessee in acquiring the land was not to retain it for himself but to resell it at profit and as such the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade thus, order passed by the CIT(A) on does not require any interference Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of income from the sale of land on a substantive basis. 2. Classification of income from the sale of land as 'profit and gains from business' instead of 'capital gain'. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Assessment of Income from Sale of Land on Substantive Basis: The department's grievance was that the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to assess the income from the sale of land on a substantive basis in the hands of the assessee, despite the assessee being a domestic servant with no means. The AO initially held that the assessee was a benamidar for Shri Manmohan Raj Singhvi, who provided the funds and managed the land transactions. The AO made a protective addition of Rs. 1,08,47,912 as capital gains in the assessee's case and a substantive addition in Shri Manmohan Raj Singhvi's case. The CIT(A) referenced a prior ITAT decision, which held that the assessee was not a benamidar of Shri Manmohan Raj Singhvi, thus directing the AO to assess the income substantively in the hands of the assessee. 2. Classification of Income from Sale of Land: The CIT(A) held that the activities carried out by the assessee were business activities. The assessee borrowed funds to purchase agricultural land, converted it to non-agricultural land, and sold it immediately after conversion. This sequence of activities indicated a business motive rather than an investment. The CIT(A) directed the AO to assess the income under 'profit and gains from business' rather than 'capital gain'. The department contended that the transaction was isolated and should be treated as a capital gain, not business income. However, the CIT(A) and the ITAT referenced multiple judgments, including Sawandas Devram vs. CIT, which supported the view that such transactions constituted an adventure in the nature of trade, thus classifying the income as business income. Detailed Reasoning: Substantive Basis Assessment: The AO's initial reasoning included that the assessee was a benamidar for Shri Manmohan Raj Singhvi, who managed and funded the land transactions. However, the CIT(A) and the ITAT referenced a prior decision where it was held that the assessee was not a benamidar. The ITAT noted that the assessee raised loans, purchased land, converted it, and sold it to S.S. Education Trust, which was a separate entity. The ITAT held that the AO's presumption of benami was not substantiated by evidence, and thus, the income should be assessed substantively in the hands of the assessee. Business Income vs. Capital Gain: The CIT(A) and the ITAT analyzed the nature of the transaction, considering factors such as the assessee's borrowing of funds, immediate conversion and sale of land, and the motive to earn profit. The ITAT referenced multiple judgments, including those from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, which established that such transactions, when carried out with the intention of making a profit, constituted an adventure in the nature of trade. The ITAT concluded that the profit from the sale of land should be treated as business income and not capital gain. Additionally, the ITAT noted that Section 50C, which pertains to capital gains, was not applicable as the transaction was classified under business income. Conclusion: The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to assess the income from the sale of land substantively in the hands of the assessee and to classify it as business income. The appeal by the department was dismissed, affirming that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade.
|
