2019 (8) TMI 17 - HC - Income Tax

Gain on sale of land - nature of land sold - business income or capital gain - sale of agricultural land - reliance on patta issued by tehsildar - HELD THAT - Adangal extract is a true copy of the Adangal register. Therefore, if he has given false certificates contrary to the entries in the Adangal register, the VAO has to be proceeded departmentally as well as criminal action has to be initiated against him. However, that would not arise in the instant case because, the Tahsildar who submitted a report to the AO on 27.01.2014, has enclosed the copies of the Patta which clearly show that the lands are wet lands. Patta is a document which proves possession and classification of the land. The copy of the patta issued is a computerised patta. There is a presumption to the validity of such official document and if a party states that the entry is incorrect or the document is false, the onus is on the party to prove the same. There is no allegation made by the Assessing Officer that the patta, copy of which was furnished by the Tahsildar, is a bogus patta. Even going by the Adangal extracts, which were furnished by the VAO, on being summoned under Section 131 of the Act, we find that in column no.19 of the Adangal extract, the land has been described as Tharisu . Therefore, even going by the subsequent records, the character of the land is not stated to be non agriculture. A land, which is an agricultural land, at many at times, cannot be put to use for agricultural purposes. Merely because an agriculture activity could not be carried on for various reasons including natural causes, it will not cease to be an agricultural land. In the instant case, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have done an elaborate exercise, assessed the documents placed before it and given a categorical finding that the land continues to remain as an agricultural land. Apart from that, the land in question upon being transferred to the purchaser, still continues to remain as agricultural land. Therefore, we cannot be called upon to examine the factual findings recorded by the Tribunal while affirming the factual findings rendered by the CIT(A) as if we are third appellate authority. Revenue having miserably failed to establish the factual matrix before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, cannot call upon this Court to embark upon a fact finding exercise. Therefore, the assessee has discharged the onus caused upon him to establish that the lands are agricultural lands. The revenue record, via., the patta issued, shows that the land is an agricultural land. Thus, the assessee having discharged the onus caused upon him, it is for the Department to prove that the entries in the revenue records and the patta were false or bogus. The two authorities have concurrently found that the Revenue has not been able to make any headway in this regard. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the sale of land by the assessee could be assessed as income from business?
2. Whether the lands sold by the company were agricultural when no agricultural activity was carried out by the assessee from the financial year 2005-06 onwards?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Revenue challenged the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the classification of the sale of land as income from business. The assessee claimed the land was agricultural and exempt from capital gains tax under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee provided evidence, including a certificate from the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) and documents showing cultivation on the land. However, discrepancies arose when the VAO stated that the earlier certificates were issued without proper verification. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently the Tribunal. Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim based on the evidence presented.

Issue 2:
The Revenue argued that the land was not agricultural, attempting to set aside the Tribunal's decision. The Senior Standing Counsel presented additional documents to support the Revenue's position. However, the court noted that the VAO's statements and the patta issued by the Tahsildar supported the agricultural classification of the land. Despite discrepancies in the VAO's earlier certificates, the patta confirmed the land's agricultural status. The court emphasized the presumption of validity of official documents and the burden on the Revenue to prove otherwise. Citing precedents, the court affirmed the findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and concluding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

In conclusion, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of official records and the burden of proof on the Revenue in establishing the nature of the land. The judgment highlighted the significance of documentary evidence and statutory records in determining the agricultural classification of the land, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.