9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 894 - AT - Income TaxIncome arising from sale of agricultural land - whether exempt or is taxable as capital gains in the facts of the case? - Held that - In the present case there is no allegation that the assessee had ever applied for change of land use. The 7/12 extracts show the land as agricultural land and there is cultivation of crop. The land is beyond 8 km from the Municipal limits and the village is having population of less than 10,000. There is no evidence on record to show that the land was used for any other purpose, other than agriculture. We are of the considered opinion that the authorities below have erred in holding that the plots of land sold by the assessee are capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. - Decided n favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the income arising from the sale of agricultural land is exempt or taxable as capital gains. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of Land and its Classification: The primary issue revolves around whether the land sold by the assessee qualifies as agricultural land and thus exempt from capital gains tax under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed that the land sold was agricultural, situated beyond 8 km from the municipal limits of Lonawala, and in a village with a population of less than 10,000. The Revenue, however, argued that the land did not meet the criteria for agricultural land as laid down by the Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Siddharth J Desai, 139 ITR 628, and thus should be considered a capital asset. 2. Revenue Records and Agricultural Use: The assessee provided extracts from the 7/12 records showing that the land was under cultivation and had not been used for non-agricultural purposes. The Revenue contended that there were contradictions in these records and that part of the land (Gat No. 244) was classified as barren, thus questioning the agricultural nature of the land. However, the Tribunal noted that minor discrepancies in the 7/12 extracts were not sufficient to dismiss the agricultural classification, as these records are prepared by Revenue authorities and beyond the control of the assessee. 3. Non-Disclosure of Agricultural Income: The Revenue argued that the assessee's failure to disclose agricultural income in the return of income indicated that the land was not used for agricultural purposes. The Tribunal, however, held that non-disclosure of agricultural income cannot change the classification of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural, citing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Smt. Debbie Alemao, 331 ITR 59 (Bom), which emphasized that land shown as agricultural in Revenue records and not used for non-agricultural purposes should be treated as agricultural land. 4. Proximity to Developed Areas and Highway: The Revenue also argued that the land's proximity to a developed area and a highway indicated its non-agricultural nature. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the development of surrounding areas and proximity to a highway do not alter the agricultural classification if the land is beyond 8 km from municipal limits and in a village with a population of less than 10,000. 5. Legal Precedents and Tribunal Findings: The Tribunal referred to several legal precedents, including Haresh V. Milani Vs. Joint CIT, 111 TTJ (Pune) 310, and ITO Vs. Shri Nitin M. Rajhans, ITA No. 150/PN/2012, which supported the assessee's position. It was noted that mere inclusion of land in an industrial zone or potential future use for non-agricultural purposes does not change its current classification as agricultural land. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the authorities below erred in treating the plots of land as capital assets. The land was classified as agricultural in the Revenue records, was under cultivation, and there was no evidence of its use for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, the income from the sale of the land was exempt from capital gains tax. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. Order Pronouncement: The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced on Wednesday, the 04th day of November, 2015.
|
