2018 (3) TMI 1348 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules land as agricultural, not subject to capital gains tax

Jai Prakash Versus Income Tax Officer

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the land in question was agricultural and not a capital asset for capital gains tax assessment. The decision ... Nature of land sold - sale of agricultural land - AO held that the land sold by the assessee is clearly capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) (iii) (a) as it is situated within the notified area of Taj Express Way Industrial Development Authority - Held that:- Merely observing that there was no agricultural product sold in the particular Financial Year under consideration and the certificate given by the Tehsildar is not that of relevant Assessment Year, cannot prove that the assessee has not proved his proper purchase and sold of the agricultural land. CIT(A) as well as AO made addition only on the ground that the said land is situated at the notified area of Taj Express Way Industrial Development Authority. The assessee has given all the documents before the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer. As seen from the documents that the land was purchased and sold for agricultural purpose and there is no change of the utilization of the land. Land is not coming under the purview of notified area as per the certificate given by the Tehsildar. Thus, the said property does not come under the purview of Section 2(14) (iii) (a) as defined for capital asset. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues:1. Classification of land as agricultural or capital asset for capital gains tax assessment.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order passed by CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The primary issue revolved around the classification of the subject land as agricultural or a capital asset for the purpose of capital gains tax assessment. The Assessing Officer treated the land as a capital asset situated within the notified area of Taj Express Way Industrial Development Authority, leading to the addition of income under the head of capital gains. The appellant contended that the land was agricultural in nature, supported by documentary evidence such as Khasra/Khatauni, Tehsil report, and sale deed. The appellant argued that the land was being used for agricultural purposes, as reflected in revenue records, and was sold for agricultural use at the prevailing fair market value.The case was reopened under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information received through AIR that the land was sold for a specific value. The Assessing Officer held that the land was a capital asset within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant challenged this decision before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. The Authorized Representative of the Assessee presented documentary evidence to support the agricultural nature of the land, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer did not question the veracity of the evidence in the assessment order.During the proceedings, both parties presented their arguments, with the appellant highlighting the agricultural classification of the land in revenue records and its actual use for agricultural purposes. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) overlooked crucial factors such as the land being used for agriculture, sold on acreage basis, and purchased for agricultural purposes at fair market value. The Tribunal concluded that the land did not qualify as a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Income Tax Act, as it was not within the notified area specified. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the addition of income under the head of capital gains was deemed unwarranted.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the classification of the land as agricultural rather than a capital asset for capital gains tax assessment. The appellant successfully demonstrated through documentary evidence that the land was used for agricultural purposes and did not fall within the scope of a capital asset as defined by the Income Tax Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering all relevant factors, including revenue records and actual land use, in determining the tax implications of land transactions.