2017 (12) TMI 741 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of land - agricultural land - scope of definition of the capital assets u/s 2(14) - Distance from municipal limit - Held that - The agricultural land situated at such a distance, as the Central Government may prescribe by notification, having regard to the extent and scope of urbanization of that area and other relevant consideration, specify in this behalf. Admittedly, as per notification, the specified distance is 5 Kms and above, so far as the distance of land of the assessee from the concerned municipal limit is concerned. The argument of the Ld. Counsel that each and every rural land is excluded from the scope of definition of the capital assets u/s 2(14) of the Act is not tenable. The reliance of the Ld. Counsel on the decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Arijit Mitra 2011 (8) TMI 556 - ITAT, KOLKATA is also misplaced. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal of the assessee. There is no merit in the appeal of the assessee and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Interpretation of section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b) of the Income Tax Act regarding the classification of agricultural land for capital gains tax purposes.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of Agricultural Land
The appeal involved a dispute over the classification of agricultural land for capital gains tax purposes. The assessee sold agricultural land situated in a rural area, approximately 4 kilometers away from the outer limits of a municipality. The Assessing Officer treated the land as urban, within the 4 KM municipal limit, and charged long-term capital gains tax. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the ITAT Chandigarh.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Relevant Provisions
The ITAT Chandigarh examined the relevant provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b) of the Income Tax Act. The definition of "capital asset" excludes agricultural land situated within a specified distance from municipal limits. The Central Government notification specified a distance of 5 kilometers or more. The ITAT noted that not all rural land is automatically excluded from the definition of capital assets under section 2(14) of the Act.

Issue 3: Legal Arguments
The assessee argued that the land in question was rural and exempt from capital gains tax under section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b). The assessee relied on a Tribunal decision in a similar case. However, the ITAT found this argument untenable, emphasizing the specific distance criteria outlined in the Act and the notification by the Central Government.

Conclusion:
The ITAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities. It concluded that the land sold by the assessee, despite being rural, fell within the specified distance from the municipal limit, making it liable for long-term capital gains tax. The ITAT found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the order of the CIT(A). The judgment clarified the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act regarding the classification of agricultural land for capital gains tax purposes.