2015 (7) TMI 195 - AT - Income Tax

Land beyond municipal limits not a capital asset for tax purposes; factual evidence key in asset classification

The I.T.O, Ward 7 (2), Jaipur Versus Smt. Kamla Devi Sharma

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that the land was not a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, as it was beyond 8 Kms from ... Agricultural land - whether land located in Khasra No. 319/320 in Sanjharia village on Sanganer Tehsil was not a capital asset U/s 2(14) of the Act? - Held that:- On perusal of evidence submitted alongwith the submission revealed that the Tehsildar, Jaipur Nagar Nigam had certified that both the khasras numbers are outside limit of Jaipur Nagar Nigam and are situated at a distance of 9 Kms from the outer limit of the Nigam. The learned CIT(A) has called remand report from the Assessing Officer who has accepted the fact of the case, therefore, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A). -Decided against revenue. Issues:- Classification of land as a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961- Assessment of long term capital gain on the sale of agricultural land- Dispute regarding the distance of the land from the municipal limitsAnalysis:1. Classification of land as a capital asset: The Assessing Officer contended that the land sold was a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act, based on its proximity to municipal limits and a town with a significant population. The Assessing Officer considered past assessments and inquiries, determining the land to be a capital asset. However, the CIT(A) disagreed, citing that the land was beyond 8 Kms from the municipal limits, as certified by the Tehsildar. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the land did not meet the criteria to be treated as a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act.2. Assessment of long term capital gain: The Assessing Officer computed long term capital gain at a certain amount, considering the sale of part of the land by the assessee. The assessee claimed exemptions and deductions under Sections 54B and 54D of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed certain expenditures claimed by the assessee, leading to a revised calculation of long term capital gain. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made as long term capital gain, as the land was not considered a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act.3. Dispute regarding distance from municipal limits: The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the land was within 8 Kms of the municipal limits, making it a capital asset. The appellant presented evidence, including the certification by the Tehsildar, confirming that the land was situated at a distance of 9 Kms from the municipal limits. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue based on the certification provided by the Tehsildar and the acceptance of facts by the Assessing Officer.In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the land in question was not a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act due to its distance from the municipal limits. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of factual evidence in determining the classification of assets for tax purposes.