2017 (1) TMI 937 - AT - Income Tax

Gain out of sale of agricultural lands - nature of land - transfer - Held that - Assessing Officer has drawn adverse inference on account of lack of appreciation of the facts. The Assessing Officer has relied upon the description in the 7/12 extracts to hold that the land was not agricultural. He has also drawn adverse inference on account of the agreement of sale executed by the assessee and the period for which the land was held by the assessee. The learned CIT(Appeals) has elaborately considered all the aspects of the Assessing Officer s adverse inference. His elaborate findings are cogent and fully sustainable. The reliance upon various case laws including that from the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smy Debbie Alemao in 2010 (9) TMI 560 - Bombay High Court fully support his findings. Accordingly do not find any infirmity in the same. Hence uphold the order of Learned CIT(Appeals). - Decided against revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the gain from the sale of agricultural lands as an adventure in the nature of trade.
2. Ownership and possession of the agricultural lands.
3. Nature of the agricultural activities conducted on the lands.
4. Applicability of the Supreme Court decision in G. Venkatswami Naidu and Co. vs. CIT.
5. Taxability of the income derived from the sale of agricultural lands situated beyond 8 kms from municipal limits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Gain from Sale of Agricultural Lands:
The primary issue was whether the gain from the sale of agricultural lands should be treated as an adventure in the nature of trade. The Assessing Officer (AO) added ?43,50,000 to the income of the assessee, considering it as an adventure in the nature of business. However, the CIT(A) concluded that the lands in question were agricultural and situated beyond 8 kms from municipal limits, thus exempt from capital gains tax. The CIT(A) referred to various judicial pronouncements that support the non-taxability of gains from the sale of agricultural lands situated beyond 8 kms from municipal limits.

2. Ownership and Possession of the Agricultural Lands:
The AO contended that the assessee was not the owner of the lands since the sale deeds were not executed in his name. However, the CIT(A) observed that possession of the properties was transferred to the assessee, making him the de facto owner. The CIT(A) cited Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which consider possession and part performance of a contract as a transfer of capital asset, thus establishing the assessee's ownership.

3. Nature of Agricultural Activities Conducted:
The AO argued that the land at Kirmiti was categorized as "Barren and Charai" and that grazing does not qualify as agricultural activity. The CIT(A) countered this by examining the 7/12 extracts, which showed that the land was used for various crops from FY 1998-99 to 2006-07. The term "Padit" used in the extracts indicated land capable of cultivation but lying uncultivated, not barren. The CIT(A) concluded that the land was fundamentally agricultural and used for grazing during the year under consideration.

4. Applicability of the Supreme Court Decision in G. Venkatswami Naidu and Co. vs. CIT:
The AO failed to apply the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in G. Venkatswami Naidu and Co. vs. CIT, which deals with the nature of gains from the sale of agricultural lands. The CIT(A) did not find merit in the AO's contention and held that the gain from the sale of agricultural lands, being agricultural in nature and situated beyond 8 kms from municipal limits, should not be treated as business income.

5. Taxability of Income from Sale of Agricultural Lands:
The CIT(A) emphasized that the crucial factor was the agricultural character of the land and its location beyond 8 kms from municipal limits. Since the lands in question met these criteria, the gain from their sale was exempt from capital gains tax. The CIT(A) directed the deletion of the addition made by the AO.

Conclusion:
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the AO's adverse inferences were based on a lack of appreciation of the facts. The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s findings to be cogent and sustainable, supported by various case laws, including the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT Vs Smy Debbie Alemao. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

Final Judgment:
The appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) is upheld. The gain from the sale of agricultural lands is not treated as an adventure in the nature of trade and is exempt from capital gains tax, given the agricultural nature of the lands and their location beyond 8 kms from municipal limits.

← Previous Next →