2022 (4) TMI 1172 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Nature of land sold - Long-Term Capital Gains in respect of the lands sold by the Appellant at Varadharajapuram Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk - CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee since there was no agricultural activity on the land - whether CIT(A) went wrong in holding the nature of lands sold is non-agricultural ? - HELD THAT - As rightly pointed out by Ld. AR, the issue of nature of land has already been dealt with by Tribunal in the case of co-owner titled as ITO V/s Late T.Bhavani Devi 2022 (4) TMI 1099 - ITAT CHENNAI Thus, in the case of co-owner, the land has been held to be agricultural land. This being so, we see no reason to take a different view in the case of assessee before us. Respectfully following the same, we would hold that the land was an agricultural land and the resultant gains were exempt from tax. All the other grounds have been rendered infructuous. The impugned additions stand deleted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment u/s 147
2. Classification of lands sold as agricultural or non-agricultural
3. Invocation of Sec. 50C of the IT Act for computation of capital gains

Reopening of assessment u/s 147:
The appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging the reopening of assessment u/s 147. The appellant contended that there was no escapement of taxable income, and the reasons for reopening were not valid. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Long-Term Capital Gains on the lands sold, arguing that the lands were agricultural based on revenue records and historical agricultural activities. The appellant also disputed the invocation of Sec. 50C of the IT Act by the Assessing Officer without providing an opportunity to the appellant.

Classification of lands sold as agricultural or non-agricultural:
The main issue revolved around the nature of the lands sold by the assessee. The appellant claimed that the lands were agricultural and therefore exempt from tax. However, the Assessing Officer computed capital gains as the lands were deemed non-agricultural due to the absence of agricultural activities based on Adangal records. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, considering factors such as the surrounding area of the lands and proximity to residential and industrial zones. The appellant argued that the Tribunal had previously ruled in a similar case that the lands were agricultural, and therefore, the gains should be exempt from tax.

Invocation of Sec. 50C of the IT Act for computation of capital gains:
The Assessing Officer invoked Sec. 50C of the IT Act to determine the value of the lands sold. The CIT(A) upheld this action, stating that the guidelines value was correctly adopted as the gross consideration. However, the appellant contended that this approach was flawed as no opportunity was provided to present their case. The Tribunal, considering the previous ruling in a co-owner's case, held that the lands were agricultural and therefore exempt from tax. Consequently, the impugned additions were deleted, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the lands sold were agricultural and the resultant gains were exempt from tax. The decision was based on the previous ruling in a similar case involving a co-owner. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming that the lands were beyond 6 kilometers from the outer limit of Tambaram Municipality, thus not taxable. The impugned additions were deleted, rendering all other grounds infructuous.