9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1312 - AT - Income TaxTaxability of gains on the sale of land - nature of land sold - reliance of evidence 7/12 extract furnished by the assessee - HELD THAT - CIT(A) after considering various case laws cited in the order has given a finding that the 7/12 extract furnished by the assessee indicated that the land that was sold by assessee is irrigated and cultivated and various crops were grown and the grass was also grown and utilized as animal feed. Assessee also submitted that the sales receipts of the mangoes sold in the market and since the income was more than the expenditure incurred it was not shown in the income tax return. He has further given a finding that the position of other agricultural lands is reflected in the balance-sheet filed by the assessee. He has further given a finding that assessee with the help cogent and reliable evidences has been able to prove that the land was used for agricultural purpose and agricultural operations were also carried out in the said land since 1993. He has further noted that the observation of AO regarding non-agricultural operations carried on the said lands was not correct in the light of the evidence 7/12 extract furnished by the assessee. Before us the Revenue has not placed any material to controvert the findings of CIT(A) nor pointed out any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus the grounds of Revenue are dismissed. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the land in question was agricultural land and not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Consideration of whether agricultural income was derived from the land and offered for taxation in prior years. 3. Evaluation of the intention behind holding the land—whether it was for agricultural purposes or for earning capital profits. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Agricultural Land Status: The primary issue revolved around whether the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land and thus not a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the land was not used for agricultural purposes at the time of sale, as evidenced by the 7/12 extract indicating only grass was grown. The AO considered the land as a capital asset and taxed the profit as short-term capital gains. However, the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] found that the land was irrigated and cultivated with crops like mango, timber, and cashew, as shown in the 7/12 extract and supported by sale receipts of mangoes. The CIT(A) concluded that the land was agricultural, considering its classification in revenue records, the absence of non-agricultural use, and the land being situated in a rural area outside municipal limits. 2. Agricultural Income and Prior Years' Taxation: The AO noted that no agricultural income from the land was reported in prior years, suggesting no agricultural operations were carried out. However, the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation that the income from agricultural produce was minimal and not sufficient to be reported in the income tax return. The CIT(A) emphasized that the land had been used for agricultural purposes historically, as evidenced by the 7/12 extract and the balance sheet showing possession of other agricultural lands. 3. Intention Behind Holding the Land: The AO inferred that the land was held with the intention of earning capital profits, not for agricultural purposes, based on the high sale price and the short duration between purchase and sale. The CIT(A) countered this by noting that the land was classified as agricultural in revenue records, no steps were taken to convert it to non-agricultural use, and the price paid by the purchaser did not change the land's agricultural character at the time of sale. The CIT(A) cited various judicial precedents supporting the view that potential non-agricultural use by the purchaser or profit motive of the seller does not alter the agricultural status of the land at the time of sale. Conclusion: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had correctly relied on evidence and judicial precedents to conclude that the land was agricultural and not a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT noted that the Revenue failed to provide any material to counter the CIT(A)'s findings or demonstrate any errors in the CIT(A)'s reasoning. Consequently, the addition made by the AO as short-term capital gains was deleted, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. Order Pronounced: The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 14th July 2017.
|
