2022 (4) TMI 611 - AT - Income Tax

Capital gain on sale of land - Nature of land - whether sold land is a 'capital asset' or 'agricultural land'? - whether land within area of 8 Kms from the municipal limits of Bhavnagar, is not considered 'agricultural land' for the purpose of Section 2(14)? - HELD THAT - We are of the confirmed view that distance cannot be measured on the basis of Goggle Map. As in the present case, AO has measured the distance with the help of Goggle Map, therefore, we set aside this matter to the file of the AO to measure the distance of the land from the outer limit of Bhavnagar Municipality without political/jurisdictional map as in the relevant assessment year when assessee claimed benefit of agricultural land. Thereafter, AO shall decide the matter as per law. Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Determination of whether the land sold by the assessee is a capital asset or agricultural land.
2. Application of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act.
3. Interpretation of CBDT Circular No. 17/2015 regarding the measurement of distance for determining agricultural land.
4. Consideration of judicial precedents in similar cases.
5. Assessment of the AO's method of measuring distance using Google Maps.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the AO's decision that the land sold is a capital asset and liable for capital gain tax. The contention was that the land was agricultural, but the AO disagreed and added an amount under Section 50C of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the addition based on the distance of the land from the municipal limits of Bhavnagar, concluding it was non-agricultural land. The assessee cited judicial precedents to support their claim.

Issue 2:
Section 50C of the Act was applied by the AO to make the addition of a specific amount concerning the land sale. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, considering the distance of the land from the municipal limits as a determining factor. The dispute revolved around whether the land qualified as a capital asset or agricultural land, impacting the tax implications.

Issue 3:
The interpretation of CBDT Circular No. 17/2015 was crucial in determining the classification of the land sold by the assessee. The circular addressed the measurement of distance for identifying agricultural land, especially in relation to municipal limits. The distance criteria were significant in deciding whether the land fell under the definition of a capital asset.

Issue 4:
Judicial precedents, such as the case of ITO vs. Akash Deep Farms P. Ltd., and the order of the Jaipur Tribunal in Dinesh Kumar Jain vs. ITO, were cited to support the assessee's argument regarding the classification of the land. These cases provided insights into the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and the applicability of amendments in different assessment years.

Issue 5:
The method used by the AO to measure the distance of the land from the municipal limits, particularly relying on Google Maps, was challenged. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for reevaluation, emphasizing the need for a correct measurement of distance without using political or jurisdictional maps. The decision highlighted the importance of accurate distance calculation in determining the nature of the land for tax purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the necessity of precise distance measurement from municipal limits to ascertain the classification of land as a capital asset or agricultural land. The judgment underscored the significance of adhering to legal provisions, circulars, and judicial precedents in tax assessments related to land transactions.

← Previous Next →