Land sale by milk vendor not business income but means of livelihood due to family needs

The Tribunal held that the income derived from selling land by the assessee, a milk vendor with a family business, was not business income but a means of livelihood due to family needs and limited livelihood options. The land sale was prompted by potential compulsory acquisition or encroachment, and the assessee had held the land for decades without business intent. The Tribunal concluded that the transaction was not a business venture but an effort for livelihood, directing the Assessing Officer to accept the return filed by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the income derived by the assessee from selling land can be treated as business income or not.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Belgaum, dated 13-6-2002. The assessee, a milk vendor, had been carrying on a family business for decades and decided to sell 17 acres of agricultural land in the middle of 1990 due to various reasons like potential compulsory acquisition or encroachment. The assessee entrusted the conversion of the land into non-agricultural for selling plots to another party on a commission basis. The contention was that the transaction was not a business venture but a means of livelihood for the family. The Departmental Representative argued that the conversion and sale of the land constituted an adventure in the nature of trade, justifying the treatment of income as business income.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had held the land for over 5 decades without any intention of investing for business purposes. The land was personally cultivated by the assessee, and the sale deed indicated that the land was sold to meet family needs due to family difficulties. The Tribunal observed that the sale of the land was necessitated by the growing likelihood of government acquisition or encroachment, and the assessee, being a small-time milk vendor and agriculturist, had limited options for livelihood. Developing and selling the land was a practical approach to secure a better price for sustaining the family. The Tribunal concluded that the transaction was not a business venture but an effort for livelihood, directing the Assessing Officer to accept the return filed by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

---