2003 (10) TMI 263 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the land (agricultural vs. commercial) for tax purposes.
2. Applicability of Section 45(5)(b) of the Income-tax Act for enhanced compensation.
3. Relevance of the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. to the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Land:
The primary issue was whether the land in question, acquired by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in 1983, was agricultural or commercial for tax purposes. The Revenue contended that the land was commercial, citing several factors:
- The land's description in the revenue record as "Banjar" or "Ger Mumkin," indicating non-agricultural use.
- The land's location near commercial establishments like Dhillon Theatre and a shopping complex.
- The assessee's own claims in acquisition proceedings and requests for permission to construct a hotel.
- Statements from authorities under the Land Acquisition Act and the District Judge's award describing the land as commercial.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) disagreed, holding that the land was agricultural based on:
- The land's location in a village with a population of less than 200.
- The original acquisition notification and the Land Acquisition Collector's application indicating agricultural use.
- The absence of any conversion of the land to non-agricultural use and agricultural operations carried out before compensation was received.

The Appellate Tribunal, however, sided with the Revenue, emphasizing:
- The revenue record's description of the land as non-agricultural.
- The lack of evidence showing agricultural operations on the land.
- The surrounding commercial assets and the assessee's own admissions of the land being a commercial asset.
- The Supreme Court's tests in the cases of Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah and Gemini Pictures Circuit (P.) Ltd., which supported the classification of the land as commercial based on its use and surroundings.

2. Applicability of Section 45(5)(b) of the Income-tax Act:
The Assessing Officer (AO) applied Section 45(5)(b) of the Income-tax Act, which deals with the taxation of enhanced compensation for compulsorily acquired capital assets. The CIT(A) had ruled that this provision did not apply because the land was agricultural. However, the Tribunal found that:
- The land was a capital asset, not agricultural, and thus subject to capital gains tax.
- Section 45(5)(b) clearly applied to the enhanced compensation received by the assessee.
- The statutory provision required taxation of the enhanced compensation in the year it was received, regardless of any pending litigation challenging the compensation.

3. Relevance of the Supreme Court's Decision in Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd.:
The assessee argued that the enhanced compensation was not taxable based on the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., which held that compensation was not taxable until the right to receive it was final. The Tribunal, however, distinguished this case, noting:
- The Supreme Court decision predated the introduction of Section 45(5)(b), which specifically addressed the taxation of enhanced compensation on a receipt basis.
- The statutory provision under Section 45(5)(b) was clear and unambiguous, mandating the taxation of enhanced compensation in the year it was received.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the land in question was commercial, not agricultural, and thus a capital asset subject to capital gains tax. The enhanced compensation received by the assessee was taxable under Section 45(5)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's order, allowing the Revenue's appeal.