2017 (6) TMI 240 - AT - Income Tax

Sale of land - capital asset - exemption from tax on sale of agricultural land calimed - LTCG on sale of land - nture of land sold - land beyond 8 kms from any municipality - Held that - Respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Anjana Sehgal 2011 (3) TMI 695 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT we hold that for claiming the agriculture land as not a capital asset, the land in question should be beyond 8 kms from any municipality and not only from the jurisdictional municipality. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT-A on the issue in dispute is set aside and ground of the appeal of the Revenue is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the addition of Long Term Capital Gain arising on transferring of land can be deleted based on the provisions of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, Revenue, challenged the deletion of the addition of Long Term Capital Gain made on the sale of agricultural land. The Assessing Officer considered the land as a capital asset due to its proximity to the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Delhi. However, the assessee argued that the land was beyond 8 km from the municipal limits of Sonepat, thus not qualifying as a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act.

2. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contention that the land was used for agriculture and sold to an educational society, thus not relevant for section 2(14)(iii). Additionally, relying on a Tribunal decision, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee's argument based on the distance from the municipal limits of Sonepat.

3. During the appeal, the Senior DR cited precedents against the assessee, while the assessee's counsel acknowledged the unfavorable decision by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a similar case.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 2(14) of the Act and noted that the land was within 8 km of the Delhi Municipal Corporation but beyond 8 km from the Sonepat municipal limits. The Tribunal referenced the High Court decision, emphasizing that proximity to any municipality within 8 km was crucial for land to be considered a capital asset.

5. Citing the High Court's ruling, the Tribunal concluded that for land to be exempt as agricultural and not a capital asset, it must be situated beyond 8 km from any municipality, not just the jurisdictional one. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s decision was overturned, and the Revenue's appeal was allowed.

This judgment clarifies the criteria for determining whether agricultural land qualifies as a capital asset under the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of the distance from any municipality for such classification.