9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 541 - AT - Income TaxExemption claimed u/s.54B - profits realized on sale of the agricultural land constituted business income and also denied the exemption claimed u/s.54B - benefit of deduction u/s.54B denied on the ground that the land was not used by the assessee for agricultural purposes for the preceding two years from the date of transfer of such land - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer has not conducted any specific enquiry to negate the assertions made by the assessee that the land was used for agricultural purposes. As per the 7/12 extracts, kharif season crops were grown on that land. As decided in SHRI VINIT KRISHNAKUMAR GOYAL VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9, PUNE. 2019 (8) TMI 520 - ITAT PUNE It is an undisputed fact that the 7/12 extracts were provided to the Revenue Authorities wherein clearly it is stated that the land in question was agricultural land. Even, there is certificate from Deputy Director, Town Planning, Pune stating that at the time of transfer the lands were agricultural land. Similarly, in the Sale Deed itself it is clear that the lands in question were agricultural land. On the contrary, though the Revenue is taking the transaction as business income they have not brought in any evidence on record neither they have conducted any specific enquiry to show that it is business transaction. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of land as agricultural land. 2. Eligibility for exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Determination of land as a capital asset. 4. Validity of the Assessing Officer's findings and denial of exemption. 5. Supporting evidence and documentation provided by the assessee. 6. Judicial precedents and their applicability to the case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Land as Agricultural Land: The core issue revolves around whether the land sold by the assessee qualifies as agricultural land. The assessee argued that the land was agricultural, situated more than 10 kms from municipal limits, and had a population of less than 10,000 as per the 2001 census. The assessee provided 7/12 extracts and a certificate from the Gramsevak to support the claim. The Assessing Officer accepted the land as agricultural but contested the agricultural activities conducted on it. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) found that the land was indeed agricultural, as evidenced by the 7/12 extracts and revenue records, which recorded crops grown and land revenue paid by the assessee. 2. Eligibility for Exemption under Section 54B: The Assessing Officer denied the exemption under Section 54B, arguing that no agricultural activities were carried out on the land for the preceding two years before its sale. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) criticized the Assessing Officer for not conducting a specific enquiry to verify the nature and character of the land and the agricultural activities. The Tribunal noted that the 7/12 extracts recorded crops grown, indicating the land's agricultural use. 3. Determination of Land as a Capital Asset: The Revenue argued that the land should be treated as a capital asset, subject to capital gains tax. However, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal found that the land was agricultural and thus exempt from the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the land's classification in revenue records and the absence of any contrary evidence from the Revenue supported the assessee's claim. 4. Validity of the Assessing Officer's Findings and Denial of Exemption: The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's denial of exemption was based on insufficient grounds. The Officer did not conduct a thorough enquiry and relied on the meager agricultural income shown by the assessee. The Tribunal highlighted that the Officer's rejection of the assessee's submissions was based on suspicion and guesswork, which is not permissible under the Income Tax Act. 5. Supporting Evidence and Documentation Provided by the Assessee: The assessee provided substantial evidence, including 7/12 extracts, revenue records, and a certificate from the Gramsevak, to support the claim that the land was agricultural. The Tribunal noted that these documents clearly indicated the land's agricultural use and that the Revenue failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. 6. Judicial Precedents and Their Applicability to the Case: The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including CIT Vs. Minguel Chandra Pais, CIT Vs. Smt. Debbie Alemao, and Gopal C. Sharma Vs. CIT, to support the assessee's claim. These cases established that land classified as agricultural in revenue records and used as such should be treated as agricultural land, exempt from capital gains tax. The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case aligned with these precedents, further supporting the assessee's position. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), concluding that the land in question was agricultural and not a capital asset. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 54B of the Act. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection by the assessee was deemed infructuous and dismissed. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of proper enquiry and evidence in determining the nature of land and eligibility for tax exemptions.
|
