1980 (10) TMI 9 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the land in question was agricultural land within the meaning of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the profits from the sale of the land were liable to be taxed as capital gains.

Summary:

Issue 1: Agricultural Land Classification
The primary issue was whether the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The land in question was ancestral, purchased by Shri C. C. Dalal in 1933, and had been treated as agricultural land in wealth-tax assessments from 1957-58 to 1967-68. The land was shown as under cultivation in the record of rights, and both the agreement to sell and the sale deed described it as agricultural land. The land had never been put to non-agricultural use until the sale date.

The Tribunal initially held that the land was not agricultural, citing its location within a town planning scheme, its sale through a commercial agency, and its surrounding by building sites. However, the High Court found that these factors were insufficient to rebut the strong presumption of the land being agricultural, as established by its actual use and the record of rights. The court emphasized that the correct legal test is the land's character at the time of sale, not its potential future use.

Issue 2: Taxation of Capital Gains
The second issue was whether the profits from the sale of the land were subject to capital gains tax. The Tribunal had concluded that the land was a commercial plot, thus making the profits taxable. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the land's agricultural status at the time of sale exempted it from capital gains tax. The court noted that the intention of the vendee to use the land for non-agricultural purposes post-sale was irrelevant.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in holding that the land was not agricultural. The land was agricultural at the time of sale, and thus, the profits from its sale were not liable to capital gains tax. The question referred to the court was answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.