Merely because agricultural land was
sold in favour of non-agriculturist in breach of law prevailing in State, said
land would not lose its character as agricultural land and, hence, could not be
treated as capital asset.
Facts:
a) The assessee had filed return of income and disclosed income
from sale of agricultural land in response to notice issued under section 153C.
b) The Assessing Officer made addition on account of capital
gain by holding that the land, which was sold by assessee, was a capital asset
as it was sold in violation of laws prevailing in the State.
c) On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. Further, the
Tribunal confirmed order of the CIT(A). The aggrieved-revenue filed the instant
appeal.
The High Court held in favour of assessee as under:
1) It was not in dispute that what was sold by the assessee was
an agricultural land which was situated beyond 8 Kms. of local limits of the
Municipality and at the relevant time, the land was held by the assessee as
agricultural land;
2) The character of land would not change merely because it was
sold to a non-agriculturist in breach of law prevailing in the State and the
land still would continue as an agricultural land;
3) Even though the sale in favour of non-agriculturist could be
declared as illegal, yet the land would not lose its character as agricultural
land;
4) When the land was an agricultural land, which was situated
beyond 8 Kms. from the municipal limits, no error had been committed by the
Tribunal in not considering the land as 'capital asset';
5) Thus, the land was to be treated as agricultural land and it
was outside the purview of capital asset. – CIT
v. Rajshibhai Meramanbhai Odedra [2014] 42 taxmann.com 497 (Gujarat)
No comments:
Post a Comment