2020 (10) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Agricultural Land Exempt from Capital Gains Tax: Court Affirms ITAT Decision, Dismissing Revenue's Appeals Based on Factual Evidence.

The Court upheld the ITAT's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. It concluded that the land retained its status as agricultural land under Section ... Nature of land sold - capital asset or agricultural land - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the capital assets viz., vacant land sold by the Assessee was agricultural land as defined u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act especially when no agricultural operations was done by the Assessee prior to the sale and the assessee had obtained permission for converting the lands from agriculture use to non agriculture use prior to the date of the sale? - HELD THAT:- When the correctness of the order of CITA was tested before the Tribunal, once again, the Tribunal made a factual exercise and found that agricultural activities were carried out in the land, there were standing banana crops as well as coconut trees etc., Furthermore, from the revenue records, which were placed before the Tribunal in the form of paper book by the assessees, the Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact that the lands, which was sold were indeed agricultural lands. Furthermore, it is relevant to note that the lands, which are subject matter of consideration are situated 40 Kms away from Thiruvallur Municipality and 30 Kms away from Madhavaram Municipality. Furthermore, the Village Administrative Officer had certified on 01.12.2008, i.e., prior to execution of sale deed that the assessees and their family members were using the land for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, the President of Andal Kuppam Panchayat within whose limits the land is situated, has certified that the assessees and their family members are using the lands for cultivation of paddi, sugarcanes, ground nuts, mango and coconut etc., and the land, as mentioned in the sale deed has to be construed as 'unbuilt land', but not 'non-agricultural land'. This document was placed before the assessing officer. Furthermore, the statements of neighbouring land owners were also available before the assessing officer. Therefore, on facts, the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal has correctly concluded in favour of the assessee. CITA applied the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim [1993 (9) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] found that the majority of the test were answered in favour of the assessees - Substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. Issues:1. Whether the land sold by the assessees qualifies as agricultural land under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax ActRs.2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the land sold did not attract capital gains tax under Section 45(1) as agricultural landsRs.3. Whether the Tribunal should have applied the decision of the Madras High Court in a similar case regarding capital gains tax liabilityRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The assessees sold land and received a substantial consideration. The assessing officer reopened the assessment, claiming the land was no longer agricultural due to prior approval for conversion. The CITA allowed the appeals, stating the land was agricultural as per Section 2(14) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding agricultural activities were conducted on the land, supported by various documents and certifications, concluding the land was indeed agricultural.Issue 2:The Revenue argued that the land lost its agricultural status due to approval for conversion. They cited the Supreme Court's tests and a Division Bench decision favoring revenue in a similar case. However, the CITA and Tribunal found the land to be agricultural on the sale date, supported by factual evidence, certifications, and statements from neighboring landowners. The Tribunal's decision was based on these factual findings, rejecting the Revenue's arguments.Issue 3:The Revenue relied on various case laws to support their argument that the land was non-agricultural. However, the Court distinguished these cases based on the factual position in the present case. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, as the land was deemed agricultural on the sale date, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.In conclusion, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and answering the substantial questions of law against the Revenue. The judgment was based on the factual determination that the land in question retained its agricultural status at the time of sale, despite prior approval for conversion.