2014 (2) TMI 733 - AT - Income Tax

Deletion made under the head LTCG Income from sale of land - agriculture land Exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act allowed Held that - The Tribunal was therefore justified in holding that distance of 2 kms from the municipal limits of city of Khanna has to be reckoned for the purposes of s. 2(14)(iii) by measuring the same as per the road distance and not as per straight line distance on a horizontal plane or as per crow s flight Relying upon Laukik Developers v. Dy. CIT 2006 (7) TMI 534 - ITAT MUMBAI - the report of the Tehsildar having certified that the assessee s land was 8 kms away from the municipal limit, the land constituted agricultural land entitling the assessee to exemption u/s 54B of the Act. Capital Asset u/a 2(14) of the Act Held that - The revenue record issued by Tehsildar is more authentic document in which it has been clearly mentioned that various crops were grown by the assessee which is further supported by an affidavit of the assessee which has not been found untrue - No evidence has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer evidencing that no crops were grown by the assessee - If any suspicion crept into the mind of the Assessing Officer, nothing prevented him to get the report from Sarpanch, neibours of the impugned land or the revenue Patwari but that was not done by him - The conclusion drawn in the order clearly indicates that the impugned land is situated clearly beyond 8 kms from the municipality - the land would not fall within the definition of capital asset as mentioned in sec. 2(14) of the Act Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the land sold by the assessee qualifies as agricultural land.
2. Whether the land sold is situated beyond the prescribed limit of 8 kilometers from the municipal limit, thus exempting it from being classified as a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Agricultural Nature of the Land
The primary contention revolves around whether the land sold by the assessee qualifies as agricultural land. The assessee presented various pieces of evidence, including certificates from the Tehsildar and revenue Khasra records, indicating that the land was used for agricultural purposes and various crops were grown on it. The Tehsildar's certificate specifically mentioned that crops were taken from the land in the years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Additionally, the sale deed cited the land as agricultural, and agricultural operations were noted at the time of sale. The appellate authority concluded that the land's nature as agricultural was supported by substantial evidence, including state government records and the Tehsildar's certification, which the Assessing Officer had unjustly disregarded.

Issue 2: Distance from Municipal Limit
The second issue concerns whether the land sold is situated beyond the prescribed limit of 8 kilometers from the municipal limit, which would exempt it from being classified as a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee provided certificates from the Public Works Department (PWD) and the Tehsildar, which indicated that the land was more than 8 kilometers away from the municipal limits. The PWD certificate dated 4.11.2011 stated that the distance from the municipal limit to the village Arandiya was 7.8 kilometers by the shortest route and 9 kilometers through another route. The appellate authority emphasized that the distance should be measured up to the actual location of the land sold, not just the village, and should consider the road network available at the time of sale. The appellate authority found the PWD certificate more reliable than the vague and unspecific certificate issued by the Tehsildar, which mentioned a distance range of 4 to 6 kilometers.

Conclusion:
The appellate authority concluded that the land sold by the assessee was indeed agricultural and situated beyond the prescribed 8 kilometers from the municipal limit. Therefore, it did not fall within the definition of a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, and the income from its sale was exempt from capital gains tax. The Assessing Officer's decision to disallow the claimed exemption was found to be unjustified, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The appellate authority's decision was affirmed based on the substantial evidence provided by the assessee, including certificates from competent authorities and revenue records.