9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 954 - AT - Income TaxGains arising on sale of Santaj land and Rakanpur land - LTCG OR business income - Held that - We find that the action of the AO was simply guided by the considerations of the Revenue alone to collect more taxes without bringing any concrete material on record to justify that the acquisition of land under sale was induced by commercial spirit. At this juncture, we observe that section 2(14) stipulates that property can be capital asset even if connected with business of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee is entitled in law to hold certain class of assets as capital asset even while he is dealing with the asset of similar nature in business with commercial objectives. Thus, we find that plea of the assessee has merits and deserves acceptance. We accordingly hold that land/properties were held by the assessee as capital assets before its sale and consequential gains arising on sale thereto is chargeable under the head capital gains . Accordingly, the AO is directed to consider the capital gains arising on sale of land/properties as chargeable under the head capital gains as claimed by the assessee. - Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the gains arising from the sale of land should be treated as Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) or business income. 2. The impact of the volume of transactions and the use of borrowed funds on the classification of income. 3. The relevance of the land being treated as an investment for wealth tax purposes on its classification for income tax purposes. 4. The effect of the intention behind holding the land on its classification. 5. The implications of wealth tax payments on the classification of the land for income tax purposes. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Gains: The primary issue is whether the gains from the sale of land should be classified as Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) or business income. The assessee argued that the land was held as an investment, which had been accepted in past assessments. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] treated the gains as business income, arguing that the sale and purchase of the land constituted an adventure in the nature of trade. The Tribunal noted that the land was declared as a capital asset in the books and subjected to wealth tax, indicating the intention to hold it as an investment. The Tribunal concluded that the gains should be treated as LTCG. 2. Volume of Transactions and Use of Borrowed Funds: The assessee contended that the volume of transactions and the use of borrowed funds should not determine whether the gains are LTCG or business income. The CIT(A) and AO emphasized that the use of borrowed funds suggested a business motive. However, the Tribunal observed that while the use of borrowed funds might indicate a trading intent, it is not solely determinative. The Tribunal found that the assessee's consistent treatment of the land as an investment in the books and the wealth tax returns supported the classification as LTCG. 3. Wealth Tax Treatment: The assessee argued that since the land was treated as an investment for wealth tax purposes, it should similarly be treated as a capital asset for income tax purposes. The CIT(A) rejected this argument, stating that the wealth tax treatment does not bind the AO in income tax assessments. The Tribunal agreed that while the wealth tax treatment is not conclusive, it is a significant indicator of the assessee's intention to hold the land as an investment. 4. Intention Behind Holding the Land: The intention behind holding the land was a critical factor in determining its classification. The CIT(A) argued that the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land and the lack of agricultural income indicated a business motive. The Tribunal, however, noted that converting land to maximize its sale value is consistent with prudent investment behavior. The Tribunal emphasized that the intention at the time of acquisition is crucial and found that the assessee's intention was to hold the land as an investment. 5. Wealth Tax Payments: The assessee argued that the payment of wealth tax on the land, which is not payable on trading assets, indicated that the land was held as an investment. The CIT(A) dismissed this argument, stating that the wealth tax treatment does not preclude the AO from treating the gains as business income. The Tribunal found that the wealth tax payments supported the assessee's claim that the land was held as a capital asset. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the land was held as a capital asset and the gains from its sale should be treated as LTCG. The AO was directed to consider the gains under the head "capital gains" as claimed by the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
|
