9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the lands sold during the year of account were 'agricultural land in India' and hence not liable to be excluded from the definition of 'capital asset'. 2. Whether the surplus realized on the sale of land in the year of account is exempt from capital gains. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Agricultural Land Definition The primary issue was whether the lands sold by the assessee were agricultural lands and thus not capital assets under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal's findings indicated that the land had been used for agricultural purposes from 1953 until the date of sale in 1966. Despite this, the ITO and AAC considered the lands as non-agricultural due to their location in the heart of the city, the high sale price, and the absence of land revenue assessment, instead being subjected to urban land tax. The Tribunal's Vice President and Judicial Member held that the general character of the land, rather than its temporary use for agriculture, should determine its classification. They applied tests such as the environment and situation, the intention of the assessee at purchase, and the potential value of the land. The Vice President noted that the land's use for agriculture was not conclusive and that its general character remained non-agricultural. However, the High Court emphasized that if the land was consistently used for agricultural purposes, it should be presumed to be agricultural land. The Court cited various precedents, including decisions from the Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court, emphasizing that the actual and current use of the land for agriculture is a significant factor. The Court concluded that the land retained its agricultural character, rebutting the revenue's arguments based on location, price, and the assessee's intentions. Issue 2: Exemption from Capital Gains Given the determination that the land was agricultural, the next issue was whether the surplus from its sale was exempt from capital gains tax. The High Court held that the presumption of the land being agricultural was not rebutted by the revenue. The revenue's reliance on factors like the land's location within city limits, high sale price, and the intention to construct buildings did not suffice to change its agricultural character. The Court reiterated that the burden of proving that the land was not agricultural lay with the revenue, as established in the Supreme Court's decision in CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigah. The Court found that the revenue failed to dislodge the presumption of the land's continued agricultural use, which was supported by consistent agricultural activities from 1953 to the sale date. Thus, the surplus from the sale was exempt from capital gains tax. Conclusion: The High Court answered both questions in the negative and against the revenue. It held that the lands sold were agricultural lands and thus not capital assets, making the surplus realized from their sale exempt from capital gains tax. The Court emphasized the importance of the actual and consistent use of the land for agricultural purposes in determining its character, rejecting the revenue's arguments based on location, price, and intentions. The assessee was entitled to costs, with a counsel's fee of Rs. 500.
|
