2016 (8) TMI 908 - HC - Income Tax

Sale of land - liable to be taxed as business profit or capital gain - Held that - It appears from the record that the entire plot of land was purchased way back in 1971 in the name of HUF. Thereafter, necessary permission under the Urban Land Ceiling Act for transferring the land was taken from the District Collector. It further appears that there was no sale of the land in the past except the sale of portion of the said land in the year under appeal and the remaining portion of land in the previous year. Both the parcels of land were sold to the same party. All throughout, the assessee was the owner of the land in question and no transfer of rights in favour of any third party ever took place until the portion of said land was sold in the year preceeding the relevant year. Therefore, under no circumstances, the transaction could have been termed a business adventure. In our opinion, the Tribunal committed serious error in upholding the order of CIT(A) of declaring the transaction a business adventure since it is a capital gain. - Decided in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether the land in question should be taxed as business profit or capital gain.

Analysis:
The Tax Appeal was filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which raised the substantial question of law regarding the classification of the land sale proceeds as business profit or capital gain. The assessee had declared an income for the assessment year 2002-03, claiming that the bank deposits were from the sale proceeds of land. The Assessing Officer considered the sale as an adventure in the nature of trade, resulting in business income.

The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, a second appeal was made to the Tribunal, which also ruled against the assessee. A miscellaneous application for rectification was rejected by the Tribunal, leading to the filing of the Tax Appeal.

During the proceedings, the counsel for the assessee argued that the land was purchased 30 years ago and was sold in two parts, with only two transactions related to the land. On the other hand, the Revenue's counsel contended that the assessee was engaged in selling different plots of land, justifying the taxation of profits as business income.

Upon review of the documents and facts, the High Court observed that the entire plot of land was purchased in 1971 in the name of HUF. The land was sold in two parts to the same party, with no prior sales recorded. The Court concluded that the transaction could not be considered a business adventure, emphasizing that it should be treated as a capital gain rather than business income.

Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, overturning the previous decisions. The appeal was disposed of with no costs awarded.