ITAT holds rural agricultural land beyond Rajarhat limits not a capital asset under s.2(14)(iii)(b); no capital gains

ITAT, Kolkata held that the land sold by Assessee was agricultural land situated 2.5 km beyond the outer limits of Rajarhat Municipality and not within any area notified by the Central Government under s. 2(14)(iii)(b) of the IT Act. As such, it qualified as rural agricultural land excluded from the definition of "capital asset." Consequently, the gains arising from its sale were not chargeable to capital gains tax. The assessment order levying capital gains was quashed for lack of jurisdiction to tax the transaction, and the cross-objection filed by Assessee was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the asset transferred is agricultural land and falls within the definition of a capital asset as defined under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition of Capital Asset:
The primary issue in the cross-objection by the assessee is whether the land sold qualifies as agricultural land and thus does not fall within the definition of a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). According to the Act, agricultural land in India, not situated within certain municipal limits or within a specified distance from such limits, is excluded from the definition of a capital asset.

2. Distance from Municipality:
The assessee claimed the land is agricultural and does not fall within the definition of a capital asset because it is located 8/9 kilometers from the Rajarhat Municipality office. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) determined that the land is approximately 2.5 kilometers from the outer limits of Rajarhat Municipality, making it a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. This determination was based on certificates from the Pradhan, Rajarhat Bishnupur Gram Panchayat, and BL & LRO, Rajarhat.

3. Agricultural Activities:
The AO also examined whether agricultural activities were conducted on the land. The assessee's statements and field inquiries revealed that the land consisted of a pond and mango orchard, with no significant agricultural activity. The AO concluded that the land could not be termed agricultural based on these findings.

4. CIT(A) Decision:
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing that the land was within 2.5 kilometers of the Rajarhat Municipality's outer boundaries, thus falling within the definition of a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii)(b). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's arguments regarding the agricultural nature of the land and the distance measurement from the municipality office.

5. Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal considered the definition of a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) and the relevant notifications specifying areas within the distance from municipal limits. The Tribunal noted that the land in question is 2.5 kilometers from the outer limits of Rajarhat Municipality and does not fall within the jurisdiction of any municipality or cantonment board with a population of not less than ten thousand. The Tribunal referred to the notifications under section 2(1A)(c), proviso (ii)(B), and 2(14)(iii)(b), which did not include Rajarhat Municipality.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the land does not fall within the definition of a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) as it is situated outside the municipal limits and beyond the specified distance from the local limits of Rajarhat Municipality. Therefore, the land is considered agricultural, and no capital gains tax can be charged on its sale. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection and dismissed the revenue's appeal, rendering the issue on merits academic and requiring no further consideration.

Final Judgment:
The appeal of the revenue is dismissed, and the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed. The assessment order charging capital gains on the sale of the land is quashed based on the jurisdictional issue.

---