9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of surplus as long-term capital gain versus adventure in the nature of trade. 2. Allowance of interest of Rs. 28,920 as a deductible expense. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Surplus: The primary issue was whether the surplus from the sale of agricultural land should be assessed as long-term capital gain or as an adventure in the nature of trade. The assessee, a widow, sold her ancestral agricultural land in small plots through an agent. The Assessing Officer initially assessed the income as capital gains but later changed the classification to business income, treating it as an adventure in the nature of trade. The CIT(Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, relying on precedents from the Madras High Court. The Departmental Representative argued that the sale in small plots and the agent's commission indicated a trading activity. However, the assessee's counsel contended that selling ancestral land to fetch the best price did not constitute a trade adventure. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and legal principles, concluded that the dominant intention of the assessee was not to carry on a trade but to sell her agricultural land. The revenue failed to prove any change in circumstances or law that would justify treating the transactions as business income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, confirming that the surplus should be assessed as long-term capital gains. 2. Allowance of Interest: The second issue was whether the interest of Rs. 28,920 should be allowed as a deductible expense. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the deduction, stating that the interest was payable on an amount set apart by the assessee and invested in FDRs and NSCs. The CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and allow the deduction if the interest was indeed payable. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(Appeals), noting that since the amount was set apart as a liability, the interest payable on it should be allowed as a deduction against the income earned from the investment. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s decision on this issue as well. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals on both issues, confirming the CIT(Appeals)'s findings that the surplus from the sale of agricultural land should be treated as long-term capital gains and that the interest of Rs. 28,920 should be allowed as a deductible expense. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as they no longer survived.
|
