2018 (9) TMI 1535 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of land sold - CIT(A) treating the land in question as agricultural land - AO has established that the land was situated within 8 km of Municipal limit as per letter of Municipal Corporation, Dehradun - Held that - As carefully considered the documentary evidences brought on record if these documents are properly examined, then the factual position will be clear whether the impugned land was agricultural land or not. Moreover, we find that there is a certificate which certifies that the distance from the end of the municipal limit to the impugned land is around 8.85 km 9.5 km. We are of the opinion that this needs further verification by the AO. In the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the matter to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to examine the documents furnished by the assessee. The AO is further directed to verify the distance of the impugned land from the end of the municipal limits as on the date of notification i.e. 6.1.1994. The AO must give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the issue afresh. - Appeal of revenue allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Treatment of land as agricultural land.
2. Applicability of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act.
3. Addition of income from the sale of land as business income.
4. Admissibility of additional evidence.
5. Verification of distance from municipal limits.

Analysis:

1. Treatment of land as agricultural land:
The appeal by the Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the land in question as agricultural land. The Revenue contended that the land, situated within 8 km of the Municipal limit as per the Municipal Corporation letter, should not be considered agricultural land. The assessee argued that the land was used for agricultural activities and thus should be exempt from tax on the sale of agricultural land.

2. Applicability of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act:
The AO invoked Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act to treat the income from the sale of land as business income due to its proximity to the municipal limits. However, the CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the basic character of the land as agricultural should not change based solely on proximity to municipal limits. The CIT(A) emphasized that the land was classified as agricultural in records and land revenue was paid accordingly.

3. Addition of income from the sale of land as business income:
The AO added the income from the sale of land to the assessee's total income as business income due to the land's location near municipal limits. The CIT(A) overturned this decision, ruling that the land's agricultural nature remained unchanged despite its proximity to urban areas, leading to the deletion of the addition.

4. Admissibility of additional evidence:
During the proceedings, the assessee sought to introduce additional evidence under Rule 29, crucial to the case. The Tribunal considered these documents necessary for a clear understanding of the land's classification and directed the AO to examine them further for a fair decision.

5. Verification of distance from municipal limits:
The Tribunal found discrepancies in the distance between the land and municipal limits, prompting a need for further verification by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying this distance as of the relevant date and ordered the AO to re-examine the issue after providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the matter for the AO to reevaluate based on additional evidence and proper verification of the land's distance from municipal limits.

← Previous Next →