1980 (5) TMI 20 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules land as agricultural, not subject to capital gains tax under Income Tax Act.

The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the land sold was agricultural and therefore not considered a capital asset under section 2(14) ... Capital Asset Issues Involved:1. Whether the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land and fell outside the scope of 'capital asset' u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. Whether the excess realization on the sale of the said land was chargeable to capital gain.Summary:Issue 1: Agricultural Land and Capital Asset- The primary question was whether the land sold by the assessee at Tollygunj was agricultural land and thus excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961.- The assessee, a Sterling company, used the land as a trial ground for testing seed quality. The ITO initially assessed the capital gains at Rs. 98,405.- The AAC ruled that the land was agricultural and thus outside the definition of 'capital asset,' attributing only Rs. 10,000 to non-agricultural structures on the land.- The Tribunal confirmed that the land was used for agricultural operations, even if on an experimental scale, and thus was agricultural land, not a capital asset u/s 2(14).Issue 2: Chargeability to Capital Gain- The Tribunal's finding that the land was used for agricultural purposes meant that it did not qualify as a 'capital asset' u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961.- Consequently, the excess realization from the sale of the land was not chargeable to capital gain.Legal Reasoning:- The court referred to the definition of 'agricultural income' u/s 2(1) and 'capital asset' u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961.- The court emphasized the Supreme Court's interpretation in CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466, which defined agricultural operations as including basic activities like tilling, sowing, and other cultivation processes.- The court noted the significant departure in the definition of 'capital asset' between the 1922 Act and the 1961 Act, focusing on whether the land was used for agricultural purposes rather than the purpose of the agricultural activity.- The court concluded that the nature of the operations carried out on the land, not the purpose, was the determining factor for classifying it as agricultural land.Conclusion:- The court answered the question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee, confirming that the land was agricultural and thus not a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961.- There was no order as to costs.Agreement:- SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J. concurred with the judgment.