2019 (5) TMI 1554 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal classifies land as capital asset due to external restrictions, resulting in long-term capital gain treatment

M/s. AJB Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus The DCIT, Circle – 2 (1), New Delhi.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the land should be classified as a capital asset due to external restrictions prohibiting ... Long term v/s short term capital gains/loss - period of holding of land as capital (asset) is less/more than 36 months - the land which was sold converted in capital assets from 06th April 2012 and earlier the land was held as stock in trade - Whether book entries made in the books of account of the assessee showing the impugned land as stock in trade would be relevant ? - HELD THAT:- The assessee rightly contended that findings of the A.O. is incorrect because the capital asset was acquired way back in F.Y. 2006-2007 which is accepted by the A.O, as such, on date of sale period of holding would be beyond 36 months. Therefore, benefit of indexation should be allowed as the asset was acquired way back in F.Y. 2006-2007. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that impugned land remain as capital asset because of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above as per Notification of the Ministry of Defence (supra). Therefore, on account of transfer of the same to AHCL by way of Settlement of the Dispute in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the assessee correctly offered the same as long term capital gains/loss as per Law. The Orders of the authorities below thus are not sustainable in law. Assessee, alternatively also submitted that since Ansal obtained an injunction in July, 2009, therefore, the same would also be beyond 36 moths and as such, it would support the explanation of assessee that land in question was capital asset in nature. In that event the book entry made on 06.04.2012 would not be relevant. We agree with the alternate contention of the Assessee that when everything was brought to the notice of the Court and it came to the knowledge of both the parties that no business activity or construction could be carried out in the impugned land and Hon’ble Delhi High Court granted injunction in July, 2009, therefore, from that date it would be very clear that impugned land would not be having character of stock in trade. Therefore, alternative contention of assessee is also accepted. In view of the above facts, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Classification of land as capital asset or stock-in-trade.2. Determination of period of holding for capital gains calculation.3. Relevance of book entries in determining the nature of the asset.4. Applicability of long-term capital gains or short-term capital gains on the sale of land.5. Impact of external restrictions (Ministry of Defence Notification) on the classification of the asset.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Land as Capital Asset or Stock-in-Trade:The primary issue was whether the land sold by the assessee should be treated as a capital asset or stock-in-trade. The assessee argued that the land, initially held as stock-in-trade, was converted to a capital asset due to restrictions imposed by a Ministry of Defence Notification, which prohibited construction within 1000 yards of a military ammunition dump. This restriction, along with an injunction from the Delhi High Court, prevented any business activity on the land, thereby changing its nature to a capital asset. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] disagreed, stating that the land remained stock-in-trade until its conversion on 06.04.2012.2. Determination of Period of Holding for Capital Gains Calculation:The A.O. contended that since the land was converted into a capital asset on 06.04.2012, the holding period was less than 36 months, classifying it as a short-term capital asset. Conversely, the assessee argued that the land was acquired in F.Y. 2006-2007, and despite its initial classification as stock-in-trade, the holding period should be considered from the date of acquisition, making it a long-term capital asset.3. Relevance of Book Entries in Determining the Nature of the Asset:The assessee maintained that book entries indicating the land as stock-in-trade were not relevant, emphasizing that the true nature of the asset, influenced by external restrictions, should determine its classification. The Tribunal supported this view, citing judgments that book entries are not determinative of the asset's nature. The true character of the asset should be considered, focusing on whether it resulted in profit or loss to the assessee.4. Applicability of Long-Term Capital Gains or Short-Term Capital Gains on the Sale of Land:The A.O. assessed the gain from the sale of land as short-term capital gain, while the assessee claimed it as long-term capital gain. The Tribunal concluded that the land, acquired in F.Y. 2006-2007 and subject to external restrictions, should be treated as a long-term capital asset. Consequently, the profit from its sale should be classified as long-term capital gain, allowing the benefit of indexation from the date of acquisition.5. Impact of External Restrictions (Ministry of Defence Notification) on the Classification of the Asset:The Tribunal acknowledged the significant impact of the Ministry of Defence Notification and the Delhi High Court's injunction, which barred any construction or business activity on the land. These external restrictions substantiated the assessee's claim that the land's nature shifted from stock-in-trade to a capital asset, despite its initial classification in the books of account.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the orders of the A.O. and the CIT(A), accepting the assessee's contention that the land was a capital asset. The period of holding was determined from the date of acquisition in F.Y. 2006-2007, making the gain from its sale a long-term capital gain. The Tribunal emphasized that book entries were not relevant in this context, and the true nature of the asset, influenced by external restrictions, should prevail. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the addition made by the A.O. was deleted.