2009 (11) TMI 63 - HC - Income Tax

Nature of land deduction u/s 54B agriculture land - In the Financial Year 1995-96 relevant to Assessment Year 1996-97 late Smt. Phusha Devi wife of Jug Lal had sold her agricultural land situated in Village Fazilpur Jharsa for a sum of Rs.89, 75, 000/-. After her death notices under Section 148 were issued to her legal heirs. In response to that a return was filed showing the net taxable income of Rs.37, 000/-. In the said return the long term capital gain was shown as nil. In order to claim that the agricultural land owned and sold by the assessee did not fall in the definition of Capital Assets as defined in Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act 1961 the assessee produced a certificate from Tehsildar Gurgaon to the effect that the land of the assessee was situated beyond 8 Kms. from the Gurgaon municipal limits. The Assessing Officer while not accepting the said report and while relying upon the report given by the Inspector did not accept the assessee s contention of exemption under Section 54B and determined the capital gain to the tune of Rs.86, 65, 900/- in the assessment order held that - without the help of the revenue officials it is difficult for a person to identify the land and then to measure the distance of the said land with the municipal limits. CIT(A) and ITAT accepted the the report dated 16.1.2004 given by the Tehsildar exemption to be allowed decided in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "Capital Assets" under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the evidence presented by the assessee to support exemption under Section 54B.
3. Competency of assessing officer to determine capital gain based on conflicting reports by revenue officials.
4. Assessment of the distance of land from municipal limits for tax purposes.

Issue 1:
The first issue involves the interpretation of the term "Capital Assets" under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant claimed that the agricultural land sold did not fall under this definition. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim and determined the capital gain, leading to an appeal by the assessee.

Issue 2:
The second issue pertains to the evidence presented by the assessee to support exemption under Section 54B. The appellant produced a certificate from the Tehsildar stating the distance of the land from municipal limits to justify the exemption claim. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) accepted this evidence, highlighting the importance of the Tehsildar's report over that of the Inspector.

Issue 3:
The third issue revolves around the competency of the assessing officer in determining capital gain based on conflicting reports by revenue officials. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the assessing officer erred in not believing the Tehsildar's report and relying on the Inspector's report. The ITAT emphasized the importance of verifying the accuracy of reports through proper channels.

Issue 4:
The final issue concerns the assessment of the distance of the land from municipal limits for tax purposes. The ITAT upheld the findings of the CIT(A) based on the report of the Tehsildar, which indicated that the land was beyond 8 kms from the municipal limits. The ITAT dismissed the appeal, stating that the findings were factual and not contrary to the evidence on record.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the interpretation of tax laws, the significance of evidence in tax assessments, the role of different revenue officials in providing reports, and the importance of accurate distance measurements for tax purposes. The decision emphasizes the need for assessing officers to consider all relevant evidence and rely on competent authorities' reports to make informed judgments in tax matters.