9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Acquisition Act, 1894? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income from one-half of the property situate at 16 Aurangzeb Road, has rightly been held assessable under the head 'Property '? 5. If the answer to question No. 4 is in the negative, whether the claim for repairs and depreciation has rightly been restricted to one-half of the claim? " Some other references relating to the same assessee-company and involving more or less similar questions of law have already been decided by this court. The reference for the assessment year 1961-62 is D. L. F. Housing and Construction P. Ltd. (Now D.L.F. United) v. CIT [1983] 141 ITR 806 (Delhi). Question No. 1 in that case is practically the same as question No. 1 in the present case except for the amount. Question No. 2 except for the language is practically the same as question No. 2 referred in this case. However, the present question No. 3 is somewhat different from question No. 3 in the reported case. Questions Nos. 4 and 5 are practically the same except for a change in language. In the reported case, the answer to question No. 1 was in the negative. Learned counsel for the Department wants to dist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly agricultural operations were carried on in the land. This plea was rejected by the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. The main point urged before the court was that the land having been found to be stock-in-trade, the finding was conclusive as far as the court was concerned. This question was considered by the court and the findings are at page 817 of the report (of 141 ITR): " On the contrary, the farm account of the assessee shows that substantial amounts were spent on the agricultural farm and income therefrom was also received. It may be that the layout plan for West Rajouri Gardens which had been submitted by the assessee earlier to the D.D.P.A. for sanction was not approved and the assessee realised that there was no prospect whatsoever of the scheme in question being sanctioned. All the same, the fact remains that no step was taken towards development of the land in dispute and it retained its agricultural nature even at the time of its acquisition by the Government. This is a vital circumstance which cannot be lost sight of for determining whether the profits are assessable as those arising out of a venture in the nature of a t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der he states that the Awards Nos. 1421, 1422, 1497, 1548 and 1596 relate to the present year and the others relate to earlier years. In order to determine what was the extent of cultivable agricultural land and non-cultivable agricultural land, we would have to ask for further statement. However, we are of the view that there is no doubt that compensation has been paid for this very land on the ground that it is an agricultural land. The very mention of the type of land in the awards is based on the agricultural quality of the land and compensation has been awarded not on the basis of the land being a developed colony, but on the basis that it is agricultural land, Learned counsel for the assessee has referred to a judgment of this court in Gaon Sabha of Lado Sarai v. Jage Ram, ILR [1973] 1 Delhi 984, where some useful observations have been made regarding the nature of agricultural land. It was stated by the court as follows: " In our opinion, it is a mistake to consider that banjar qadim or ghair mumkin are not agricultural lands, These two types of lands are also covered by the provisions of the Act. In Land Revenue Assessment Rules, 1929, which were framed by the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the acquired agricultural land. So, in actual fact, the question is related to a capital gain resulting from the acquisition of the land in question. The second question involves the interpretation of section 2(1) of the Act. This provision defines agricultural income. The answer given in the reported case was that the amount was not income being a compulsory purchase of agricultural land. Learned counsel for the assessee claims that even if it was treated as income, we should hold that this was rent or revenue derived from land which is situated in villages and is used for agricultural purposes. It has already been held by the Income-tax Officer and other authorities under the Act that the land which was acquired was not being used for agricultural purposes by the assessee. So, in a sense, this question is answered against the assessee by the finding that the land was not used for agriculture. However, it is also true that the land was not being used for any other purpose by the assessee. It would thus retain its agricultural character for the Purposes of this provision. Learned counsel for the assessee urged that a broader meaning could be given to the term " revenue " and " r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
