2022 (7) TMI 739 - AT - Income Tax

LTCG computation - Change in land use of the property in question - adoption of fair market value Rs. 60/-per sq. mtr as on 01.04.1981 of the land sold - HELD THAT - We do not find any merit into the objection of the assessee that the land in question being agricultural land cannot be treated as capital asset. The sale-deed itself goes to demonstrate that what was being transferred was an industrial land. Therefore, there is no ambiguity on these facts. The objection of the assessee that land was an agricultural land is devoid of merit, hence, rejected. The case laws as relied by the assessee are distinguishable on the facts of the present case. Thus, ground nos. 1 3 of appeal are dismissed. Adoption of indexed cost of acquisition - The assessee has filed circle notified rates of the area. It would be in the interest of justice to set aside this issue for verification. Therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside on the issue of computation of indexed cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981. The Assessing Officer would verify the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 from State land revenue authorities and re-compute the indexed cost of acquisition as per the circle rates. Needless to say that Assessing officer would provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee in this regard. Ground no. 2 of assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the land sold (agricultural vs. industrial).
2. Adoption of fair market value for indexed cost of acquisition.
3. Objection to assessed tax and interest under sections 234A and 234B.
4. Applicability of provisions under section 271(1)(C).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Land Sold (Agricultural vs. Industrial):
The core issue was whether the land sold by the assessee was agricultural or industrial at the time of sale. The assessee argued that the land was ancestral agricultural land, used for agricultural purposes until its sale, and thus should not be considered a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee cited agricultural income of Rs. 16,000/- for the year, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A). However, the land's use was changed to industrial on 28.01.2009, before the sale-deed execution on 03.08.2009. The Tribunal found that the sale-deed unequivocally demonstrated the transfer of industrial land, rejecting the assessee's contention. The Tribunal dismissed ground nos. 1 and 3, stating that the land was indeed industrial at the time of sale.

2. Adoption of Fair Market Value for Indexed Cost of Acquisition:
The assessee contested the AO's adoption of Rs. 60/- per sq. mtr. as the fair market value as on 01.04.1981. The assessee argued that the circle rate for land in the area was Rs. 100/- to 125/- per sq. mtr. in 1981. The Tribunal found merit in the need to verify the actual fair market value. The issue was set aside for the AO to verify the cost of acquisition from State land revenue authorities and re-compute the indexed cost of acquisition as per circle rates. Ground no. 2 was allowed for statistical purposes.

3. Objection to Assessed Tax and Interest under Sections 234A and 234B:
The assessee's objection to the assessed tax and interest under sections 234A and 234B was noted as consequential. The Tribunal did not provide a separate ruling on this issue, indicating that the outcome would depend on the final determination of the indexed cost of acquisition and other related computations.

4. Applicability of Provisions under Section 271(1)(C):
The assessee raised a ground regarding the provisions of section 271(1)(C), which pertains to penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal deemed this contention premature and did not adjudicate on it at this stage.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, primarily to re-evaluate the fair market value for indexed cost of acquisition. The Tribunal upheld the AO's and CIT(A)'s findings regarding the nature of the land being industrial at the time of sale, thereby dismissing the primary grounds of the appeal related to the nature of the land and the resultant long-term capital gains. The order was pronounced in open court on 15th July, 2022.

← Previous Next →