2015 (4) TMI 220 - AT - Income Tax

Sale of agricultural land - AO disallowed the claim of exemption of surplus on sale of agricultural land and brought the same to tax under the head short term capital gains - CIT (A) observed that as per the certificate given by the Director (Planning) HMDA, the land does not fall within the prescribed municipal limits, therefore, cannot be treated as capital asset u/s.2(14)(iii) and to be considered as as agricultural land, thus the gain on sale of land cannot be brought to tax Held that - Relevant evidence/documents were not produced during the assessment proceedings with respect to carrying out agricultural activities. Also income from sale of agricultural produce (Jowar) was not substantiated by supporting the claim and furnishing bills and vouchers. The photographs which were taken during the post search clearly depicts that the land was not used for cultivating agriculture crops, as it contains boulders and wild grass appears to be grown on the land. Hence as could be seen from the photographs the land seems to be unploughed and unutilized, whereas according to the assessee, the land has been actually put to use for agricultural purpose. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the issue of land being agricultural land has not been proved beyond doubt and hence the issue is set aside to the file of the AO who shall verify all the necessary documents as well as the bills and vouchers for the sale of agricultural produce before concluding whether the land is agricultural land. Further for the exclusion of land from the definition of capital asset, the definition of capital asset is to be as per section 2(14)(iii). Hence, the AO shall verify whether the land is a capital asset as per section 2(14)(iii) - Decided in favour of Revenue for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land.
2. Whether the land qualifies as a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Whether the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land:
The assessee claimed the land was agricultural and thus exempt from capital gains tax. The AO disallowed this claim based on several factors, including the land not being assessed for land revenue, its proximity to GHMC limits, the land not being used for agricultural purposes, and the high sale price suggesting non-agricultural use. The AO relied on statements from the Village Revenue Officer and photographs taken during a search operation. The assessee countered this by providing documents such as purchase and sale deeds, pahani-adangal records showing the land as dry and used for growing jowar, and certificates from relevant authorities confirming the land's agricultural status and its location beyond 8 km from municipal limits. The CIT (A) supported the assessee's claim, noting the land was recorded as agricultural in revenue records and the sale deed, and the agricultural income was declared in the income tax return before the search operations. However, the Tribunal found that relevant evidence of agricultural activities was not produced during assessment proceedings, and the photographs suggested the land was not used for agriculture. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for re-verification of the necessary documents and evidence.

2. Whether the land qualifies as a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act:
The definition of a capital asset excludes agricultural land situated beyond 8 km from municipal limits. The assessee provided certificates from the Director (Planning), HMDA, and the Dy. Collector and Tahsildar, confirming the land's location beyond 8 km from the municipal limits. The CIT (A) observed that the land did not fall within the prescribed municipal limits and thus could not be treated as a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii). However, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify whether the land qualifies as a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) by checking the distance from municipal limits and other relevant considerations.

3. Whether the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade:
The AO argued the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade, citing the significant profit made from the sale. The CIT (A) disagreed, noting the assessee was not a trader, had not improved the land to make it more marketable, and there was no repetition of such transactions. The CIT (A) concluded the transaction was a realization of investment rather than a trading activity, supported by judicial precedents indicating that mere profit from a sale does not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in its final directive, focusing instead on the need for further verification of the land's agricultural status and its qualification as a capital asset.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter back to the AO for re-verification of the agricultural status of the land and its qualification as a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the AO was instructed to verify all necessary documents and evidence before concluding the nature of the land and the applicability of capital gains tax.