Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1637 - AT - Income TaxSale of the land - agricultural land - capital asset u/s 2(14) - sale of the land was not for agricultural purpose but for construction of flats - whether a particular land sold is agricultural land or not is to be determined as per the definition provided in Sec.2(14)(iii)? - Held that:- When the facts in the assessee’s case are examined in line with the provisions of Sec.2(14)(iii), it shows that the nearest Taluk being Chinglepet Taluk Kancheepuram District and the village Taiyur shows that a population of only 7609 and the distance from the Chinglepet is 23.5 kms and the distance from Kancheepuram is 64.1 kms. A perusal of the Chitta & Adangal shows the names of the assessee and the Kist having been paid as agricultural land and the Village Administrative Officer certified as specifying both single crop and double crop. The assessee has placed such substantial evidences and this is not rebutted by the AO in respect of the nature of the land, as to whether it is agricultural or not? AO has read into only the Sale Agreements and no other documents. Admittedly, the assessee is entitled to sell his land for the best possible price that can be generated, but if the nature of the land is agriculture, the same cannot be brought under the definition of capital asset for the purpose of levying long term capital gains. Further, what has been sold by the assessee is not converted lands. This being so, in the present case, as it is noticed that the land sold by the assessee is agricultural land, we are of the view that the same is not giving rise to any long term capital gains in the hands of the assessee. The findings of the CIT(A) and the AO on this issue stands reversed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|