THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. JAYARAM DAS DEVADASAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/7/2017HC KeralaKLHC01026083201709 March 2017Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court fully agreed with the order passed by the ITAT. The Court found no reason for the Revenue to take a different view regarding the assessee's 2.02 acres of land when it had already accepted the agricultural nature of the remaining 8.26 acres owned by the assessee's mother, an order that had attained finality. The Court observed that there was no material before it or the statutory authorities to indicate that the assessee's land was different from the mother's portion. Consequently, the Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue did not give rise to any substantial question of law to be considered. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the ITAT's decision that the land was agricultural and not liable for capital gains tax.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, for the assessment year 2009-2010. The dispute concerns the taxability of 2.02 acres of land owned by the assessee, Jayaram Das Devadasan. The ITAT had ruled that this land is agricultural and therefore not liable for capital gains tax, overturning the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee and his mother jointly owned 10.28 acres, with the assessee's share being 2.02 acres. Notably, the Revenue had previously accepted the mother's claim that her share of 8.26 acres was agricultural land, and that order had become final. There was no material presented to differentiate the assessee's 2.02 acres from the mother's portion.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2.02 acres of land owned by the assessee is liable for capital gains tax, turning on the classification of the land as agricultural or otherwise, under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the land is agricultural and not subject to capital gains tax. This position was supported by the fact that the Revenue had accepted the agricultural nature of a larger, contiguous parcel of land owned by the assessee's mother, which had attained finality. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the 2.02 acres of land owned by the assessee should be subject to capital gains tax. The Revenue did not present any specific material to distinguish the assessee's land from the portion accepted as agricultural land belonging to the assessee's mother.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

T.C 3/2035
ITA NO.74/COCH/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/18TH PHALGUNA, 1938 ITA.No. 7 of 2017 () --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 74/COCH/2016 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 11-08-2016 APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------------------------------------------ JAYARAM DAS DEVADASAN DEVADEEPAM, T.C 3/2035, LIC LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 004. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.No. 7 of 2017 () : 2 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 29.12.2011. ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ITA NO.20/SAL/TVM/CIT(A), TVM/2011-12 DATED 14.12.2015 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM. ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH, KOCHI IN ITA NO.74/COCH/2016 DATED 11.08.2016. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. rv ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ------------------------------------------- Income Tax Appeal No. 7 of 2017 ( ) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of March, 2017.

JUDGMENT Anonty Dominic,J. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and considered the submissions made.

2.

This appeal filed by the Revenue is aggrieved by an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 74/Coch/2016 concerning the assessment year 2009-2010. The issue raised is whether 2.02 acres of land owned by the assessee is liable for capital gain tax or not. By the impugned order, the Tribunal had accepted the case of the assesee that it is an agricultural land and on that basis the Tribunal set aside the order of assessment which was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority.

3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, we find that the assessee and his mother owned 10.28 acres of land in Andoorkonam Panchayath in Thiruvananthapuram District and out of 10.28 acres of land, the assessee has 2.02 acres of land as his share, which is the subject matter of the proceedings. From the order, we find that proceedings for levy of capital gain tax initiated against the assessee's mother in respect of the balance 8.26 acres of land ended -2- in an order of the Department itself, whereby her case that it is an agricultural land has been accepted by the Department and that order has attained finality. There is no material either before this Court or before the statutory authorities to indicate that 2.02 acres of land owned by the assessee is in any manner different from the remaining portion held by the mother. In such a situation, we do not see any reason for the Department to take a different view in the case of the land owned by the assesee.

4.

We, therefore, fully agree with the order passed by the Tribunal and it does not give rise to any question of law to be considered by this Court in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE. Rv -3-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →