2016 (2) TMI 738 - AT - Income Tax

Treatment to land - agricultural v/s non agricultural - selection of assessment year - Held that - Since the facts in the present case indicate that assessee has sold away the agricultural land and there is no intention or evidence that land was converted to non-agricultural land or put to use for nonagricultural purposes, the contention that purchaser used the land for the purpose of Engineering College cannot be held against the assessee so as to treat the land as non-agricultural land. It is also deserves to be noticed that Revenue did not place on record about the status of the 2/3rd stakeholder s assessments. It is also further noticed that the land in question was sold on 4th March, 2008, the fact of which was also stated in the assessment order. However, for the best reasons known to the A.O. he treats the previous year as 2008-09 whereas the previous year should have been 2007-08. Consequently, the issue could have been considered in A.Y. 2008-09 and not in A.Y. 2009-10 in which year there is no such transaction of sale of land. The A.O. in our view, has considered the assessment year wrongly and initiated proceedings in a later year, when the property was sold on 04.03.2008 relevant to A.Y. 2008-09. In view of that the contentions of the Revenue does not require any consideration - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether the land in question should be considered as agricultural land or a capital asset for taxation purposes.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was whether the land in question was to be treated as agricultural land or a capital asset for taxation under the head of "Long Term Capital Gains." The Revenue contended that the land was not used for agricultural purposes and was sold for non-agricultural activities, thus liable for capital gains tax. The Assessee argued that the land was agricultural, supported by government records showing cultivation activities and the land being beyond 8 KM from municipal limits.

2. The Assessing Officer initially concluded that the land was not agricultural based on lack of evidence of agricultural income declaration, non-cultivation prior to sale, and post-sale commercial activities. However, the CIT(A) disagreed, citing judicial precedents that non-cultivation for a few years does not change land's character unless explicitly converted to non-agricultural use. The CIT(A) found no evidence of such conversion and ruled in favor of the Assessee.

3. The Revenue appealed, referencing a Supreme Court case emphasizing the importance of factual evidence in determining land use. The case highlighted factors favoring the Revenue, such as non-cultivation, sale for non-agricultural purposes, and immediate commercial activities post-sale. The Assessee countered with evidence of land being beyond 8 KM from municipal limits and purchased and sold as agricultural land.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence, noting the land's location, purchase history, and lack of conversion to non-agricultural use. It referenced a similar case where land sold for commercial use but was still considered agricultural. The Tribunal also cited a Delhi High Court case emphasizing that intended use or lack of agricultural operations does not change land's character. Additionally, the Tribunal criticized the Revenue for incorrect assessment year selection, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the land was to be considered agricultural based on the evidence presented and the lack of conversion to non-agricultural use. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of factual evidence and proper assessment year selection in tax cases, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

This detailed analysis covers the key arguments, legal precedents, and the Tribunal's final decision regarding the classification of the land in question for taxation purposes.