2020 (3) TMI 954 - AT - Income Tax

Long Term Capital Gain on Sale of Agriculture Land - whether Agriculture Land is not an asset u/s 2(14) - nature of land sold - agriculture land or capital asset - whether on a part of entire agriculture land the rice mill was installed and on remaining agriculture land, agriculture operations were carried out till the date of sale and it is incorrect that the land ceased to be agriculture land for I.T. purpose - HELD THAT - The land is agricultural land, as depicted in the revenue records. No contrary decision has been cited before us. It is only the land beneath the rice mill, measuring 8800 sq. ft., on which long term capital gain is exigible. The contention of the assessee, regarding land of 700 sq. ft. covering his residence, has been brought up only at the present stage. It did not see the light of day at any earlier stage before any of the authorities below, nor is any evidence with regard thereto forthcoming. Therefore, this claim is not available to the assessee. In view of the above, we accept the grievance of the assessee, to the above extent, to be justified. The long term capital gain is, therefore, directed to be calculated and levied accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of land as agricultural or industrial for tax purposes.
2. Determination of long term capital gain on the sale of land with a rice mill.
3. Consideration of agricultural operations on the land and change in land use.

Issue 1: Classification of land as agricultural or industrial for tax purposes

The appellant contested the classification of land as agricultural for tax purposes, arguing that the land was not an asset under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer contended that the land had changed its nature due to the installation of a rice mill and commercial activities. The appellant emphasized that agricultural operations continued on part of the land until the sale, indicating its agricultural nature. The authorities disagreed, asserting that the land's use had changed, and the sale deed described it as industrial land. The dispute centered on whether the land qualified as agricultural, impacting the tax liability on its sale.

Issue 2: Determination of long term capital gain on the sale of land with a rice mill

The Assessing Officer calculated long term capital gains based on the entire land sold, considering the presence of the rice mill and other structures. The appellant argued that only the land occupied by the rice mill should be subject to capital gains tax, not the entire plot. The appellant's position was supported by revenue records showing agricultural activities on the land, despite the commercial use of part of it. The appellant's contention focused on limiting the tax liability to the specific portion of land directly involved in commercial activities, challenging the Assessing Officer's broader assessment.

Issue 3: Consideration of agricultural operations on the land and change in land use

The appellant presented evidence of agricultural activities on the land, supported by revenue records and the timing of land use conversion applications. The authorities failed to acknowledge the agricultural nature of the land and its historical use for farming purposes. The appellant's argument relied on legal precedents where land classified as agricultural in revenue records was exempt from capital gains tax. The case highlighted the importance of accurately determining land use and its impact on tax liabilities, emphasizing the need for a precise assessment based on the specific areas involved in commercial activities.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the calculation of long term capital gains based on the specific portion of land occupied by the rice mill. The judgment underscored the significance of accurately assessing land use and its implications for tax treatment, aligning with legal precedents emphasizing the relevance of revenue records in determining the agricultural classification of land for tax purposes.