9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... themselves as well as several other persons including the assessee. All these persons purchased this land collectively. The actual conveyance was executed on January 10, 1945. From March 15, 1945, the Elis Bridge Town Planning Scheme was extended to this land. The land was divided into several plots, which were then renumbered. The land was divided by the co-owners into 14 plots after making a provision for roads. The plots were also fenced. The plan for division of the land into plots was approved by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on January 14, 1949. Out of 14 plots, plot No. 8 admeasuring 1,594 square yards came to the share of the assessee and was transferred to her name in the Government records on December 13, 1951. By a sale deed, which has been registered on August 22, 1966, the assessee sold this plot No. 8 along with the wire fencing and along with the right to use the roads running between plots Nos. 9 and 7 as well as plot No. 11 and plot No. 12 and plot No. 6 and plot No. 7, to one Alarkha Gulamrasul Mansoori at the rate of Rs. 65 per square yard. The total sale consideration received by her was Rs. 1,03,610. For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as growing on this land. Thereafter, from 1963-64 till 1966-67, the land was lying fallow. No application was ever made by the assessee to change the user of this land from agricultural to non-agricultural. The assessee has sold this plot of land to an individual and she has not sold it to a housing society or to any industry. The certificate of the Mamlatdar dated November 24, 1970, which is based on 7 X 12 extracts and the report made by the Circle Inspector dated November 6, 1970, states that this survey number has remained fallow from 1960-61 to 1967-68. During these years, no non-agricultural use is made of this survey number. There is some discrepancy between the record of rights and the certificate of the Mamlatdar as to the period during which the land remained fallow. But, in any case, both as per the record of rights and as per the Mamlatdar's certificate, from the year 1964-65 till the year 1967-68, the land was lying fallow. In the sale deed of August 22, 1966, also the land is described as agricultural land. Are these facts sufficient to establish that the land is agricultural land ? Under section 2, sub-section (14), of the Income-tax Act, as in force at the relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd or produce of the land was required. The Supreme Court observed (at page 490 ): 'Where, however, the products of the land are of wild or spontaneous growth involving no expenditure of human labour and skill, there is unanimity of opinion that no agricultural operations were at all involved and there is no agricultural income. " The Supreme Court, however, made it clear that, in order that the land may be considered as used for agricultural purposes, one has to consider cultivation of land in its wider sense as comprising within its scope the basic as well as the subsequent operations regardless of the nature of the products raised on the land. These products may be grain or vegetables or fruits which are necessary for the sustenance of human beings including plantations and groves, or grass or pasture for consumption of beasts, or articles of luxury such as betel, coffee, tea, spices, tobacco etc., All these are products raised from the land and the term " agriculture " cannot be confined merely to the production of grain and food products for human beings and beasts. In the case of CWTV. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigah [1976] 105 ITR 133, the Supreme Court referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for agricultural purpose. In the revenue records for the years 1960-61 to 1963-64, it is shown that grass was growing on the land. There is no positive evidence that there was actual cultivation of grass or that this was meant as pasture land for cattle. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order said that there were actual agricultural operations on the land in the form of producing grass and a man was keeping cattle on this land and was using the grass growing for feeding the cattle. The Tribunal, however, said that, apart from the statement of the assessee, there is no material on record to show that grass was being grown on the land or that a "Rabari" (cattle farmer) was using the land for grazing his cattle. But the record of rights does indicate that grass was growing on this land from 1960-61 to 1963-64. The Tribunal, however, was right in pointing out that there was no material on record to indicate that grass was being grown by anybody ; and more important still, this grass was being utilised for feeding cattle, In other words, there is no material on record to indicate that this land was used for pasturing cattle. In these circumstances, even if we take the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was agricultural. It said that as against the factor of payment of land revenue on the footing of agricultural land, there were several important factors leading to a contrary conclusion.. It took into account the fact that no agricultural operations had been carried on the land for several years. In fact, there was no positive evidence that any such operations were carried on the land at any time. In fact, the only use to which the land was put was for shooting films. It could not, therefore, be regarded as having been used for an agricultural Purpose. Secondly, the intention of the original purchaser in purchasing the land was to put it to non-agricultural use. This intention could not be carried out fully because the Collector refused to grant permission to use the land for a non-agricultural purpose. In these circumstances, the court held that the land was not agricultural land. Capital gains earned on the sale of it were liable to tax under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The other decisions to which our attention has been drawn are : CIT v. V. A. Trivedi [1988] 172 ITR 95 (Bom) ; Fazalbhoy Investment Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 176 ITR 523 (Bom) ; CIT v. S. N. Desai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
