2015 (4) TMI 669 - AT - Income Tax

Treatment of Land as Agricultural land - No agriculture operations carried out on land - Dis-allowance of expenses - Held that - We have heard rival contentions of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has verified the sale deed, record of rights and the certificate of village Panchayat Batim. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the land has been purchased and it is sold within three financial year. The land has cashew nuts, mango trees, teak wood plantation and tenant is cultivating the same and pressing his tenancy right. The Ld. CIT(A) has given this fact on the basis of the evidence that the tenant has filed the suit against the owner of the property. Ld. CIT(A) has also further held that the land is not within 8 km. from the municipal limit. Ld. CIT(A) has held that assessee is a real estate developer, but he has not shown this purchase of land as stock-in-trade in his books of accounts. The Ld. CIT(A) has verified the balance sheet of the assessee and found that the land is recorded as investment. The assessee sought permission from village Panchayat for construciton of farm house. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that this land is agricultural land this is a finding of fac. The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim 1993 (9) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court . These tests were considered by Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ms. Debbie Alemao and Jaoquim Alemao 2010 (9) TMI 560 - Bombay High Court . Learned CIT(A) relied upon this decision and held that the land in questions an agricultural land and income from sale of such land will not farm part of gross total income. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, we confirm the action of Ld. CIT(A) and appeal of the Department is dismissed. In relation to dis-allowance of expenses , it was held that we have heard rival contentions of both the parties. The Ld. CIT(A) has verified the vouchers of the assessee and did not find any mistake, therefore he has deleted the addition. During the course of hearing, learned DR did not point out any material against the finding of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we confirm the same. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the land and its classification for tax purposes.
2. Disallowance of expenses due to improper vouchers and documentation.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Nature of the Land and its Classification for Tax Purposes

The primary issue revolves around whether the land sold by the assessee qualifies as agricultural land, which would exempt it from capital gains tax under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The Department contends that the land is non-agricultural and thus should be treated as a business asset, subject to capital gains tax.

The Department raised several grounds, arguing that the assessee, being a builder and developer, purchased the land with the intention of selling it for profit, classifying it as a business venture. They cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Raja J. Rameswar Vs CIT and other cases, to support their claim that the nature of the transaction should be determined by its true nature and not merely by accounting entries.

Upon scrutiny, the Assessing Officer found that the land was not used for agricultural purposes, had no agricultural income, and was located within 8 kilometers of the Panaji Municipal Corporation, thus not qualifying as agricultural land. The Inspector's report supported these findings, noting the absence of fruit-bearing trees and agricultural activities.

However, the CIT(A) disagreed, citing factual errors in the assessment order. The CIT(A) noted that the land was purchased and sold over three financial years, contained cashew, mango, and teakwood plantations, and was more than 8 kilometers from the municipal limits. The CIT(A) also criticized the Assessing Officer for not confronting the assessee with the Inspector's report, rendering it irrelevant. The CIT(A) emphasized that the land was recorded as an investment, not stock-in-trade, and the assessee sought permission for constructing a farmhouse, not commercial buildings, indicating an intent to use the land for agricultural purposes.

The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim Vs. CIT and subsequent Bombay High Court rulings, concluding that the land was agricultural and the income from its sale should not be included in the gross total income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Department's appeal.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Expenses Due to Improper Vouchers and Documentation

The second issue concerns the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 20,00,000 by the Assessing Officer, who found that some vouchers lacked complete details, such as the nature of expenses and recipient information. The CIT(A) overturned this disallowance, stating that the Assessing Officer failed to provide specific reasons or identify particular mistakes in the expense vouchers. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the DR did not present any material evidence against the CIT(A)'s findings, and confirmed the deletion of the disallowance.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals and the assessees' cross objections, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The land was deemed agricultural, exempting it from capital gains tax, and the disallowance of expenses was found to be unjustified due to lack of specific evidence.

Order Pronounced in the open Court on 23rd March, 2015