9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 858 - HC - Income TaxAgricultural land - how, the distance between an agricultural land and the nearest municipality, should be measured? - whether should be measured, by the approach road, or by straight line distance on horizontal plane? - When a person cannot approach the land by the distance in straight line on horizontal plane, should the measurement be taken, by approach road? - Held that - In a given case, the agricultural land is located in a village X and if there is a lake, measuring 4 Kms x 6 Kms, by length and breadth and if on the banks of the lake, the outer limits of the nearest municipality starts, one has to visualise distance which a person has to travel, through an approach road, permitted to be used by public and in such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the distance between the land and the nearest municipality should be measured in straight line on horizontal plane or crow flight/aerial distance. While carving out Section 11 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, legislature has also made it clear that for the purpose of any Act, that distance, shall unless a different, intention appears, be measured in a straight line on a horizontal plane. The proper interpretation to Section 11 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, depends upon the purposes for which, an Act is enacted. In the case of an explosive unit or stone quarry operations, aerial distance/crow s flight can be taken. In such circumstances, the distance falls within the ambit of prohibited distance. Thus in Section 11 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the legislature has also foreseen that measurement of distance, should be in the context and the purposes to be achieved, in any enactment and it is not a straight jacket formula, that in all cases and under all circumstances and notwithstanding the purposes, for which, an Act is enacted, measurement of distance should be done only in straight line on horizontal plane. Reverting to the case on hand we are of the view that the decisions of the fact finding authorities that there cannot be any justifiable reason to reject the certificates of the Village Administrative Officer, Deputy Surveyor, Ambattur Taluk, Tahsildar, Ambattur and the General Manager, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd s., are not perverse, warranting intervention. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we also wish to state that in the matter giving weightage to the evidence, report of the departmental inspector vis-a-vis the certificates of the Village Administrative Officer, Deputy Surveyor, Ambattur Taluk, Tahsildar, Ambattur and General Manager, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd s, for the purpose of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, certificates of the revenue authorities, who are competent to measure the land and distance, and whose reports are accepted by the Government for demarcation of the limits of an area and the certificate of the Public Transport Corporation Ltd., should be given weightage and accepted, unless the contrary is proved. In the case on hand, there are no materials to reject the said certificates, and no reason has been assigned by the assessing officer, for rejection. In the light of what is stated above, it is not open to the revenue to contend that as per Section 11 of the General Clauses Act, 1857, the distance between the agricultural land and the nearest municipality, should be measured, only in a straight line on horizontal plane. In between agricultural land and the nearest municipality, if there is a mountain, or lake or private lands or government properties, and in such other cases, where the public has no access to reach the municipality and if there is an alternative public road route, the distance has to be measured only through the access road and not in a straight line or horizontal plane. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the land sold by the assessee qualifies as agricultural land. 2. Measurement of distance between the land and the nearest municipality. 3. Applicability of the amendment to Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act regarding measurement of distance. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Determination of Agricultural Land The primary issue was whether the land sold by the assessee qualifies as agricultural land, which would exempt the profit from the sale from being taxed as capital gains. The assessee contended that the land was agricultural and situated more than 8 km from the nearest municipality (Avadi), supported by certificates from the Public Transport Department and the Village Administrative Officer. The Assessing Officer (AO) disputed this, arguing that the land was barren, sold to a non-agriculturist, and located in a developed area. The AO relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sarifabibi Mohamad Ibrahim v. CIT and concluded that the land did not fulfill the criteria for being classified as agricultural. Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] reviewed the evidence, including the lease deed for agricultural operations and certificates confirming the land's distance from the municipality. The CIT(A) held that the land was agricultural and situated more than 8 km from Avadi, thus exempting the profit from tax. Issue 2: Measurement of Distance The method of measuring the distance between the land and the nearest municipality was contested. The AO measured the distance using a private road maintained by CRPF, concluding it was 5.5 km. The CIT(A) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejected this method, stating that the distance should be measured through public roads. The ITAT referenced the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in CIT v. Satinder Pal Singh, which held that the distance should be measured by road and not in a straight line or as the crow flies. The ITAT accepted the certificates from the Village Administrative Officer, Deputy Surveyor, and Metropolitan Transport Corporation, which confirmed the distance was more than 8 km. The ITAT concluded that the AO had no material to dispute this evidence. Issue 3: Applicability of Amendment to Section 2(14)(iii)(b) The revenue argued that the amendment to Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, effective from 1.4.2014, which mandates straight-line measurement, should apply retrospectively. However, the ITAT and the High Court held that this amendment could not be applied to the assessment year 2009-10. The High Court emphasized that the measurement should consider the approach by road, not a straight-line distance, aligning with the statutory guidance on urbanization. Conclusion The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the ITAT's decision that the land sold by the assessee was agricultural and situated more than 8 km from the nearest municipality. The Court upheld that the distance should be measured by road and not in a straight line, and the amendment to Section 2(14)(iii)(b) could not be applied retrospectively. The questions of law were answered against the revenue and in favor of the assessee.
|
