Agricultural land and capital gains: later municipal notifications cannot retrospectively convert exempt land into a taxable capital asset.

Agricultural land remains outside the capital asset definition unless the municipal jurisdiction and population conditions in section 2(14) are satisfied on the relevant date. On the facts, village Chhatt was treated as part of a Gram Panchayat and outside Zirakpur municipal limits when the transfer and consideration occurred, and a later municipal expansion notification could not operate retrospectively. The population figure relied on by the Revenue was not accepted because the published Census data did not meet the statutory threshold. The discussion also noted the legal effect of an unregistered agreement and delivery of possession, but the land was ultimately treated as non-taxable agricultural land and the capital gains addition was reversed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land excluded from the definition of capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the transaction could be brought to tax as capital gains on the basis of the municipal notification, population criteria, and alleged transfer of possession.

Analysis: The statutory test under section 2(14) requires agricultural land to fall within the jurisdiction of a municipality having the prescribed population, or within the prescribed aerial distance from municipal limits. The relevant population is that of the last preceding Census whose figures were published before the first day of the previous year. On the facts, village Chhatt was shown by the 04.12.2012 notification to be part of a Gram Panchayat and was not within Zirakpur municipal limits at the relevant time. The later 19.12.2016 notification extending Zirakpur limits could not govern the position when the relevant consideration and transfer events had already occurred. The population figure relied upon by the Revenue was not accepted, since the published Census figure was below the threshold relevant to the dispute. The transfer was also considered in the light of the legal effect of an unregistered agreement and delivery of possession.

Conclusion: The land did not fall within the definition of capital asset and the capital gains addition was unsustainable. The assessee succeeded on the substantial grounds relating to taxability.

Final Conclusion: The addition treating the agricultural land as a taxable capital asset was reversed and the appeal was allowed only to that extent, leaving the alternative claim unnecessary for adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Agricultural land is excluded from capital asset status unless the statutory municipal and population conditions under section 2(14) are satisfied on the relevant date, and later municipal extension notifications cannot retrospectively alter that position.

---