Agricultural land beyond 5 km not a capital asset under section 2(14), no capital gains tax

ITAT Ahmedabad held that the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land and therefore did not constitute a "capital asset" within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act. Relying on its earlier decision in the case of the co-owner of the same property, the Tribunal found that the land was situated beyond 5 km from the limits of Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation and retained its agricultural character. Consequently, capital gains tax was held to be inapplicable, and the Department's appeal was dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the land sold, situated at village Adalaj, constituted a "capital asset" or "agricultural land" excluded under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, and consequently whether the consideration received was chargeable to capital gains tax.

1.2 Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in following and applying the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of a co-owner of the same land to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Characterization of the land as "capital asset" or "agricultural land" under section 2(14)(iii)

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1 The Assessing Officer treated the land as a capital asset on the basis that it was located in village Adalaj, having population as per 2001 Census and at about 4 km from Gandhinagar municipality, and, in the absence of details of cost of acquisition, computed long-term capital gain by taking cost as nil.

2.2 Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee contended that: (i) Adalaj is not governed by a municipality or municipal corporation so as to fall within section 2(14)(iii)(a); and (ii) by Notification No. 9447 dated 06.01.1994, only areas within 4 km of Gandhinagar municipal limits are notified as urban, whereas the subject land was beyond that radius and therefore outside the ambit of an "urban" capital asset.

2.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the very same land parcels (block nos. 94, 59, 244, 243 and 45 of village Adalaj) had already been examined by the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of a co-owner. In that decision, relying inter alia on a letter from Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority stating that the land was situated beyond 5 km radius of Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation and on Notification No. 9447 dated 06.01.1994, the Tribunal held that the land was agricultural land situated outside the specified urban limits and therefore not a capital asset within section 2(14)(iii).

2.4 The Tribunal in the present appeal examined the material and accepted that the assessee's case was factually identical to that of the co-owner, both relating to the same property, and that the earlier Tribunal decision had already concluded that the land in question was "agricultural land" and not a capital asset, as it was situated beyond 5 km from Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation and outside the notified 4 km radius.

Conclusions

2.5 The land sold was held to be "agricultural land" situated outside the urban limits specified in section 2(14)(iii) read with Notification No. 9447 dated 06.01.1994, and therefore did not fall within the definition of "capital asset".

2.6 Consequently, the sale consideration of the assessee's share could not be subjected to capital gains tax, and the addition of Rs. 4,89,83,438/- made as long-term capital gain was unsustainable.

Issue 2: Justification for reliance on the jurisdictional Tribunal's decision in the co-owner's case

Interpretation and reasoning

2.7 The Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief to the assessee by following the jurisdictional Tribunal's decision in the case of a co-owner of the same land, treating that decision as binding in respect of the same property and identical facts.

2.8 The Tribunal noted that the prior decision clearly held the land in question to be agricultural land not constituting a capital asset and that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly applied that decision to the assessee's case.

2.9 The Tribunal, having perused the earlier order and the material on record, found no distinguishing factual or legal feature in the present case that could justify a different conclusion from that reached in the co-owner's case.

Conclusions

2.10 The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in following the binding jurisdictional Tribunal decision in respect of the same land and identical facts.

2.11 There was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) warranting interference, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---