2017 (6) TMI 1117 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of land sold - long term capital gains - treatment as agricultural land sold - Held that - The land was not actually or ordinarily used for agricultural operations on or around the relevant time of sale. It is also to be seen that the income returned from agricultural operations carried on in the land was just for namesake and does not have any proportion to the efforts usually that would have been made by a true agriculturist. At the time of sale of land also no agricultural activities were carried on by the assessee. Assessing Officer has conclusively established that the lands sold by the assessee in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal for a consideration of 11,66,00,000/- were not agricultural in nature, but, on the other hand, they are non-agricultural land. Therefore, it definitely comes under the category of capital asset . Accordingly, the gains arising out of transfer of that capital asset is exigible to capital gains tax. When the basic nature of the land itself found to be nonagricultural, the arguments regarding status of the property, whether within metropolis or outside the limit of the metropolis, is irrelevant. A non-agricultural property, whether inside the municipality or outside the municipality or even in a remote village is a capital asset and transfer of the same may generate income liable for capital gains taxation. - Decided in favour of revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the land as agricultural land.
2. Determination of the land as a capital asset for tax purposes.
3. Validity of the assessment conducted by the Assessing Officer (AO).
4. Treatment of agricultural income reported by the assessee.
5. Distance measurement of the land from the municipal limits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Land as Agricultural Land:
The core issue was whether the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land. The AO argued that the land was not used for agricultural purposes, citing the absence of agricultural activities for several years and the inspector's report indicating the land's proximity to urban development. The CIT(A) countered this by stating that the land was classified as agricultural in revenue records and supported by various government documents such as Chitta, Adangal, Patta, and certificates from authorities like the VAO and BDO. The CIT(A) concluded that agricultural activities were carried out on the land, and hence it should be classified as agricultural land.

2. Determination of the Land as a Capital Asset:
The AO treated the land as a capital asset, liable for capital gains tax, based on the inspector's report that the land was within 7.2 kms from the municipal limits, thus falling under the definition of a capital asset as per the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) disagreed, relying on government records and certificates indicating the land was beyond 8 kms from the municipal limits, thus not a capital asset. The Tribunal, however, upheld the AO's view, emphasizing that the land's use and the surrounding urban development indicated it was no longer agricultural, thus qualifying as a capital asset.

3. Validity of the Assessment Conducted by the AO:
The AO's assessment was based on the inspector's physical measurement and a letter from the Tahsildar stating no agricultural activities were carried out for the past three years. The CIT(A) criticized the AO for not considering the government documents and certificates provided by the assessee. The Tribunal supported the AO's thorough investigation, including the inspector's report and the Tahsildar's letter, which provided substantial evidence that the land was not used for agricultural purposes.

4. Treatment of Agricultural Income Reported by the Assessee:
The assessee reported agricultural income in their returns, which the CIT(A) accepted as evidence of agricultural activities. The AO and the Tribunal, however, found this income to be nominal and not reflective of genuine agricultural operations, suggesting it was reported merely to claim tax benefits. The Tribunal concluded that the reported agricultural income was insufficient to establish the land's agricultural nature.

5. Distance Measurement of the Land from the Municipal Limits:
The AO's assessment included the inspector's measurement of the land's distance from the municipal limits, which was found to be 7.2 kms. The CIT(A) relied on government surveyor reports and certificates indicating the land was beyond 8 kms from the municipal limits. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the measurement methods and ultimately deemed the AO's reliance on the inspector's report as valid, reinforcing the classification of the land as a capital asset.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the land sold by the assessee was not agricultural in nature, but a capital asset subject to capital gains tax. The appeal by the Revenue was allowed, and the cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of substantial evidence and thorough investigation in determining the nature of the land for tax purposes.

← Previous Next →