2018 (11) TMI 1179 - HC - Income Tax

Nature of income - capital gain or busniss income - income from sale of land - period of holding - Held that - We are of the opinion that the transaction cannot be considered to be an adventure in the nature of trade and the findings so entered by the AO on meagre details of transactions of purchase long prior and sale together after 12-15 years, as found from the assessment order cannot be justified in law. We also have to notice that at the time of the first appeal, there was a remand report called for; based on which the first appellate authority found that there could be no exemption granted from capital gains as there were no agricultural operations carried on and the sale cannot be deemed to be of agricultural lands. We would not interfere with that portion of the first appellate authority s order, which the Tribunal also has not interfered with. However, we reject the instant appeal, affirming the order of the Tribunal and answering the question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The direction to assess capital gains has achieved finality and what remains is only computation in accordance with the provisions of the IT Act

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Misinterpretation of facts and law by the Tribunal.
2. Whether the transaction qualifies as an "adventure in the nature of trade" under Section 2(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Assessment of capital gains and exemption claims related to the sale of agricultural land.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Misinterpretation of Facts and Law by the Tribunal:
The Revenue appealed against the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the Tribunal misconstrued the facts and law by confirming the order of the first appellate authority, which found no "adventure in the nature of trade" in the transactions by the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal was criticized for merely extracting the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) without examining the supporting material. The Tribunal's interpretation of the sale transactions as separate sales was also questioned, indicating a lack of proper consideration of essential facts.

2. Whether the Transaction Qualifies as an "Adventure in the Nature of Trade":
The core legal question reframed was whether the Tribunal erred in finding no adventure in the nature of trade, given the steady purchases of properties over a period and a significant sale in the assessment year, suggesting an adventure in the nature of trade under Section 2(13) of the IT Act. The AO initiated proceedings based on the return filed by the assessee, which claimed exemption from capital gains on the sale of agricultural land. The AO found that the properties were held for 12-15 years and sold for a significant profit, indicating a real estate business venture. However, the Commissioner of Appeals found no evidence of continuous real estate trade by the assessee, and the Tribunal accepted this finding, despite a minor factual error.

3. Assessment of Capital Gains and Exemption Claims:
The AO's assessment was based on the premise that the assessee engaged in an adventure in the nature of trade, given the significant profit from the sale of properties. The Commissioner of Appeals and the Tribunal, however, found that the transactions did not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade, as the properties were held for a long period without any improvements or income derived from them. The Supreme Court's decision in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. was cited, emphasizing that a single transaction generating profit does not necessarily qualify as an adventure in the nature of trade. The Court distinguished between investment and trade, noting that the assessee's intention was to hold the property and sell it for profit if a high price was offered, which does not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the transaction could not be considered an adventure in the nature of trade, as the assessee held the properties for a considerable period without a specific intention to sell them at the time of purchase. The AO's findings were not supported by sufficient evidence, and the Tribunal's decision was upheld. The Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and directing the AO to assess capital gains in accordance with the IT Act, if not already done. The parties were left to bear their respective costs.