THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI., vs. SHRI. PRAKASH KITTUR.,

PDF · subscribers

TXA/18/2017HC BombayHCBM05000255201720 September 2017Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. PATEL,HON'BLE KUM. JUSTICE NUTAN D. SARDESSAI2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in it. The court held that the question of whether the land was agricultural and thus exempt from tax, and the Commissioner's estimation of income at 12% of the total receipt, were not questions of law that could be entertained. The court referenced the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji v Debbie Alemao, which settled similar issues. Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the court found the Commissioner's view, as upheld by the ITAT, to be not unreasonable. The court acknowledged that the original assessee had passed away, making records less accessible to the respondent, and that the Commissioner and the ITAT had correctly made allowances for this. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated, but relates to a transaction involving land at Loliem. The assessee, Prakash Kittur, acted as a facilitator or mediator in the sale of this land, which was claimed to be agricultural and thus exempted from tax. The Assessing Officer initially treated the land as a capital asset. The Commissioner estimated income at 12% of the total receipt, holding the property to be agricultural. The Commissioner also considered the land's location relative to municipal limits and the fact that it was sold as agricultural land. The appeal challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which upheld the Commissioner's findings. The procedural history indicates this is a companion appeal to Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2017, which was also dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in upholding the Commissioner's finding that the land in question was agricultural land, thereby exempting the consideration from tax, which turns on the interpretation of agricultural land and its exemption provisions under the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the ITAT erred in upholding the Commissioner's estimation of income at 12% of the total receipt, which relates to the valuation and taxation of agricultural land sales. 3. Whether the ITAT erred in upholding the Commissioner's view regarding the sufficiency of evidence, particularly in light of the original assessee's demise and the unavailability of all records to the respondent, which involves the principles of evidence and assessment. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee contended that the land was agricultural and its sale consideration was rightly exempted from tax. The respondent, son of the original assessee, also benefited from the allowance made by the Commissioner and the ITAT for the unavailability of records due to his father's passing. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through the Principal Commissioner, argued that the land should be treated as a capital asset and the transaction should be subject to tax. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's upholding of the Commissioner's findings regarding the agricultural nature of the land and the sufficiency of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but the context implies sections related to capital gains and agricultural income exemptions under the Income Tax Act.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji v Prakash Kittur 12-TXA18-17.doc Amrut IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO.18 OF 2017

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji … Appellant Versus Prakash Kittur …Respondent Ms S Linhares, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri N Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Ms G Kamat, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: G.S. PATEL & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ DATED: 20th September 2017 PC:-

This is a companion appeal to Tax Appeal No 16 of 2017 which we have today dismissed by a separate order.

The facts are broadly similar. The questions raised here relate to land said to have been agricultural land exempted from tax and which was sold. The assessee Kittur was a confirming party and served as a facilitator or mediator in that transaction. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order considered this land at Loliem that the Assessing Officer has held to be a capital asset. The Commissioner estimated the income at 12% of the total receipt. The Commissioner held the property to be agricultural. There then followed a discussion on the siting of this land and its distance from 20th September 2017

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji v Prakash Kittur 12-TXA18-17.doc municipal limits of Canacona Municipality. This is hardly a question of law that we could possibly entertain. This has been settled by the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji v Debbie Alemao.1

The second aspect in relation to this land was that when it was sold, it was sold as agricultural land. The consideration was treated as profit on account of sale of agricultural land and exempted from tax. The findings of the Commissioner in this regard were upheld. The view is not one that can be said to raise any question of law.

As to the proposed grounds or questions (c) and (d), these speak to the question of sufficiency of evidence. We have already found in the companion matter that the Commissioner’s view was upheld by the bench and is not unreasonable. The Bench also found that as a matter of fact the original assessee passed away and not all records were readily available to the present Respondent, his son. The Commissioner and the bench correctly made allowance for this aspect.

For these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal either. It is also dismissed. No costs. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI J. G. S. PATEL J. 1 ( 2011) 196 Taxman 230 ( Bom). 20th September 2017

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →