9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the land in question was stock-in-trade of the assessee. 2. Whether the surplus arising out of the compensation received by the assessee from the Government was taxable as business income or capital gains. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the land in question was stock-in-trade of the assessee. The Tribunal initially determined that the land purchased by the association of persons, which included the assessee, was stock-in-trade. This conclusion was based on several factors: the association was not agriculturalists, the land was purchased in a developing area with the intention of resale at a profit, and the assessee sought non-agricultural use permission due to rising land prices. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee admitted to doing business in land, as evidenced by records from 1948 to 1965. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's approach, stating that the intention to treat the property as stock-in-trade must be determined by the conduct of the assessee after the dissolution of the association. The High Court emphasized that the assessee's retention of the third plot without attempting to sell it indicated that the land was not intended to be treated as stock-in-trade. Issue 2: Whether the surplus arising out of the compensation received by the assessee from the Government was taxable as business income or capital gains. The Income-tax Officer initially treated the surplus from the compensation as business income, asserting that the land was stock-in-trade. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee's contention that the land, upon division, became a capital asset and thus taxable as capital gains. This decision was reversed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which maintained that the land continued to be stock-in-trade and the surplus was business income. The High Court, however, concluded that the land became a capital asset upon dissolution of the association. The Court referenced several precedents, such as Kannappa Chettiar v. CIT and Murugappa Chettiar v. CIT, which established that property received on partition or dissolution becomes a capital asset unless clear evidence shows it was treated as stock-in-trade. The High Court found that the Tribunal's reliance on the assessee's past dealings in land and the sale of some plots was misplaced. The crucial factor was the assessee's conduct regarding the specific property, which indicated an intention not to treat it as stock-in-trade. Conclusion: The High Court answered the referred question in favor of the assessee, determining that the land in question was not stock-in-trade and the surplus from the compensation should be treated as capital gains, not business income. The Court directed that the costs of the reference be paid by the Commissioner to the assessee.
|
