2016 (8) TMI 1038 - AT - Income Tax

Re-opening of assessment u/s.147 - Held that - The reassessment proceedings have rightly been initiated after forming opinion that some income chargeable to tax as escaped assessment u/s.147 of the Act, after amendment to sec.147 of the Act with effect from 01.04.1989, wide power has been given to the AO, even to reopen the cases where the assessee has fully disclosed material facts. The only condition for reassessment is that the AO should have reasoned to believe that income chargeable to tax had escapement. Such belief can be reached in any manner and is not quantified by precondition of full and true disclosure of material facts by the assessee as contemplated in the pre-amended section 147(a) of the Act. In the instant case, AO reopened the assessment, after recording reasons mentioned hereinabove in para-3.1 of this order. As such in our opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of Ld.CIT(A) and the same is confirmed. This ground of assessee is rejected. Treatment of sale of agricultural land as income from business - Held that - In this case, the assessee had no record of carrying on agricultural operations. The size of the land also suggests that it was not intended to carry on agricultural operations. The assessee is engaged in trading PVC Flex Sheets, SS Coils & Other Trading, Finance, Derivatives which throws light on the intention of the parties for the purpose of trading or investment. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the said purchase of land was to enjoy the pride of possession of agriculture, which are some of the factors enumerated by the apex Court to facilitate a judicial body to analyse the nature of transaction of sale. At any rate, as against the contention of the assessee that the property was retained for investment, the fact remains that it was sold within short time. Thus, the attendant circumstances of the case, the process of purchase of land jointly, and also sale of purchased land jointly, compel us to come to the conclusion that the purchase of land, in itself, was with an intention to sell at a profit in the form of an adventure in the nature of trade and hence though it is an isolated transaction the income thereon can still be considered as business income. - Decided against assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act after four years.
2. Treatment of sale of agricultural land as income from business.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act after four years:

The first ground of appeal concerns the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The original assessment was completed on 13.12.2011 under Section 143(3) of the Act. The appellant argued that:

(i) There was no omission or failure on their part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the year.
(ii) The predecessor assessing officer had issued a letter on 30.12.2010 seeking clarification regarding the sale of agricultural land and, after considering the appellant’s reply dated 6.12.2010, did not bring any capital gains to charge.
(iii) The re-opening of the assessment was based on a change of opinion, which is impermissible under law, rendering the reassessment order invalid.

The Assessing Officer (AO) justified the re-opening by stating that the appellant, along with others, had sold 30 Acres and 93 cents of land to a property developer. The AO believed that the vendors were engaged in real estate activity through coordinated efforts to aggregate and sell the lands, indicating that the sale proceeds should not be exempted from tax as agricultural income. The AO issued a notice under Section 148 after obtaining approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax.

During the original assessment proceedings, the AO had called for details regarding the lands sold to verify their agricultural status, particularly with respect to the population of the area/municipality. The assessee did not disclose that they, along with others, had aggregated and sold the lands. The AO concluded that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, justifying the re-opening under Section 147.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO’s decision, stating that the income chargeable to tax had indeed escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, found no grounds to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, confirming that the reassessment proceedings were rightly initiated. The Tribunal emphasized that, after the amendment to Section 147 effective from 01.04.1989, the AO has wide powers to reopen cases even where the assessee has fully disclosed material facts, provided there is reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

2. Treatment of sale of agricultural land as income from business:

The second ground of appeal concerns the treatment of the sale of agricultural land as income from business. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant, along with others, sold 30 acres and 93 cents of land to a property developer. The vendors had aggregated the land by purchasing it from various parties and held it for a short period before selling it. The appellant did not show any agricultural income in any assessment year before purchasing the lands and did not carry out any agricultural activity on the lands.

The lower authorities treated the income from the sale of land as income from business, considering the coordinated activity of purchasing and selling the land to a real estate company. The Tribunal referred to several judicial decisions, including the apex Court's decision in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. (35 ITR 594(SC)), which considered whether a particular transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade. The Tribunal noted that the intention at the time of purchase, the nature of the commodity, the quantity purchased and resold, and the subsequent actions of the purchaser are relevant factors in determining the character of the transaction.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant had no record of carrying on agricultural operations and the size of the land suggested it was not intended for agricultural purposes. The appellant's engagement in trading activities further indicated the intention for trading or investment rather than agricultural use. The Tribunal concluded that the purchase and sale of the land were part of an adventure in the nature of trade, and thus, the income therefrom should be treated as business income. The appeal on this ground was dismissed.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 and the treatment of the sale of agricultural land as income from business. The order was pronounced on 22nd July 2016, at Chennai.

← Previous Next →