2019 (11) TMI 919 - AT - Income Tax

Sale of agriculture land in rural area - income from other sources - capital asset u/s 2(14) - HELD THAT - We note that assessee s claim is that assessee s agricultural land which was sold for a consideration of ₹ 26,96,250/- cannot be taxed as a Capital Asset as per the definition given under sec. 2(14) of the Act. According to the assessee the land he sold was agricultural land which was about 3 kms (aerially) away from the Municipal boundaries of Dankuni Municipality. And since the population of Dankuni Municipality as per the latest Census of Year 2011 was only 94,936, which is below one lakh population which was a condition precedent to qualify as a Capital Asset, the assessee s agricultural land sold in the A.Y cannot be treated as Capital Asset and the sale consideration cannot be taxed. We are satisfied with the claim of the assessee that the sale consideration received from sale of agricultural land in the facts narrated above if found factually correct should not be taxed. Since the AO/CIT(A) has not examined the veracity of the documents filed we remand this issue back to the file of AO for the limited purpose of verification of documents and if found correct, then the claim that ₹ 26,96,250/- to be allowed as not taxable. If the assessee fails in the verification of the facts discussed supra , the consideration the assessee received for sale of agricultural land in any way cannot be taxed under the head income from other sources and then only capital gain to be levied in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Legality of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
3. Classification of income from the sale of agricultural land.
4. Consideration of the sale of rural agricultural land as capital receipt.
5. Treatment of income from the sale of land as capital gains.
6. Recalculation of interest under sections 234A/B/C.
7. Admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963.
8. Permission to press new or modify existing grounds of appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the appellate order violated the principles of natural justice and should be quashed. However, the judgment does not provide further elaboration on this issue, focusing instead on the substantive tax issues.

2. Legality of the Order Passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):
The appellant argued that the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) was bad in law. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this point but focused on the substantive issue of the classification of income from the sale of agricultural land.

3. Classification of Income from the Sale of Agricultural Land:
The main grievance was the addition of ?26,96,250/- treated as income from other sources by the Assessing Officer (AO). The appellant claimed this amount was from the sale of agricultural land, which should be exempt from tax. The AO noted that the appellant had not produced documentary evidence to support the claim of agricultural income and thus treated the amount as income from other sources. The CIT(A) upheld this view, noting the absence of evidence such as certificates from local authorities confirming the land's agricultural status and location outside the municipal limits.

4. Consideration of the Sale of Rural Agricultural Land as Capital Receipt:
The appellant argued that the consideration received from the sale of rural agricultural land should be considered a capital receipt and thus untaxed. The appellant provided evidence, including population census data and certificates from local authorities, to show that the land was agricultural and located more than 3 kilometers from the municipality boundary of Dankuni, which had a population of less than one lakh.

5. Treatment of Income from the Sale of Land as Capital Gains:
The appellant alternatively argued that if the sale of land were to be taxed, it should be treated as capital gains. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not examine whether the sale of agricultural land was exempt from capital gains tax and instead taxed it as income from other sources. The Tribunal found the appellant's claim plausible and remanded the issue back to the AO for verification of the documents. If the documents were found correct, the amount should not be taxed. If not, the income should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources.

6. Recalculation of Interest under Sections 234A/B/C:
The appellant contended that the interest calculated under sections 234A/B/C was unjustified and should be recalculated. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue but implied that the recalculation would depend on the outcome of the main issue regarding the classification of income.

7. Admission of Additional Evidence under Rule 29:
The appellant sought leave to produce additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963. The Tribunal considered the additional evidence provided by the appellant, such as population census data and certificates from local authorities, in its decision to remand the case for further verification.

8. Permission to Press New or Modify Existing Grounds of Appeal:
The appellant sought leave to press new grounds or modify existing ones at the time of the hearing. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this request, focusing instead on the substantive issues presented.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the issue back to the AO for verification of the appellant's claim that the sale consideration of ?26,96,250/- from the sale of agricultural land should not be taxed. The AO was instructed to verify the documents and, if found correct, allow the claim. If the claim was not substantiated, the income should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The recalculation of interest and other issues would depend on the outcome of this verification.

← Previous Next →