2018 (10) TMI 735 - AT - Income Tax

Addition being the capital gains on the sale of ancestral agricultural land - Whether the impugned ancestral agricultural land sold by the assessee is a capital asset? - Held that - As referring to the copy of notification issued by the Income Tax Department and mentioning the detail of location of the impugned agriculture land submitted that the alleged land is not a capital asset as provided in Section 2(14) of the Act in view of above referred notification and it falls outside the municipal limit as provided in this notification. Further both the parties have no objection if the issue is set aside to the file of A.O for making necessary verification. We accordingly set aside the issue to the file of Ld.A.O and also direct the assessee to obtain a certificate from local revenue office/patwari about the location of alleged land and further to prove that the same is covered by the notification referred herein above. Quantum of deduction u/s 54B - AO allowed the benefit of exemption u/s 54B for the agriculture land purchased on 2.6.2008 but denied the benefit for the second plot of agriculture land purchased on 18.4.2011which was beyond the period of two years from the date of transfer of original asset - Held that - We are of the considered opinion that the purchase of land has taken place in two parts. The affidavit signed by Shri Nagulal has been procured by the assessee much after the completion of the assessment proceedings. The assessee is also been unable to prove the source of ₹ 14,00,000/- paid by him in May, 2008 nor any justification has been proved to accept the impugned transaction of transferring of agriculture land after a lapse of 3 years even when the consideration was alleged to have been received by the buyer. No merit in the second issue raised by the assessee in Ground No.2 and accordingly dismiss the same. However our this decision will be merely academic if the assessee succeeds on merits in the first issue before the Ld.A.O as per our direction given herein above.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the impugned ancestral agricultural land sold is a capital asset?
2. Was the denial of deduction/exemption u/s 54B justified for the purchase of new agricultural land?

Analysis:

1. The appeal concerned the assessment year 2008-09 and disputed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the addition of capital gains from the sale of ancestral agricultural land. The appellant contended that the land was not a capital asset as per Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, as it fell outside the municipal limits. The issue was referred back to the Assessing Officer for verification, with directions for the appellant to provide necessary documentation to prove the land was not a capital asset. If verified, no capital gain would be chargeable.

2. The second issue related to the deduction u/s 54B of the Act claimed by the assessee for purchasing new agricultural land. The appellant had purchased land in two parts, and the Assessing Officer allowed the exemption for the first purchase but denied it for the second, as it was beyond the two-year limit from the date of the original asset's transfer. The appellant failed to prove the source of funds for the second purchase and provided an affidavit after assessment proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the claim. This decision was contingent on the outcome of the first issue. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the decision pronounced on October 9, 2018.