THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI. vs. MRS. SANJANA S. MORAJKAR.

PDF · subscribers
TXA/21/2016HC BombayHCBM05002498201529 March 2016Author: F. M. REIS,HON'BLE KUM. JUSTICE NUTAN D. SARDESSAI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there was no perversity in the findings of the authorities below. The ITAT had made a categorical finding of fact that the subject land had cashew trees, mango trees, and other fruit-bearing trees, which implies it is agricultural land. Furthermore, the assessee had sought permission for a farmhouse, also indicating its agricultural nature. The Tribunal considered Apex Court guidelines for ascertaining the nature of agricultural land. The concurrent findings of fact by the authorities below cannot be interfered with unless perversity is shown, which the Revenue failed to demonstrate. Therefore, no case was made out for admitting the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji (Revenue) challenges the orders of the authorities below, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which held that the subject land was agricultural land and thus not subject to capital gains tax. The Revenue contended that the authorities misconstrued the law and failed to consider that agricultural land must be used for agricultural activities for at least two years prior to sale. The Revenue also pointed out that the Commissioner of Income Tax had disregarded the Assessing Officer's inspection report. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the lower authorities' findings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is a substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's decision that the subject land is agricultural land, despite the Revenue's contention that it was not used for agricultural purposes for at least two years prior to sale, and that the authorities misconstrued the relevant provisions of law and acted perversely by disbelieving the Assessing Officer's inspection report? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The authorities below have misconstrued the provisions of law. To qualify as agricultural land, it must have been used for agricultural activities for at least two years prior to sale, which was not considered by the Tribunal. The findings are perverse. The Commissioner of Income Tax disbelieved the Assessing Officer's inspection report. A substantial question of law arises.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 2(14)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2016 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI. ... Appellant Versus MRS. SANJANA S. MORAJKAR. ... Respondent Ms. Asha A. Desai, Advocate for the Appellant. Coram:- F. M. REIS & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. Date:- 29th March, 2016

ORAL ORDER : (Per F.M. REIS, J.) Heard Ms. Asha Desai, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.

2.

The above appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act challenges the orders passed by the authorities below whereby they came to the conclusion that the subject land was agricultural land and not subject to capital gains.

3.

The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the authorities below have misconstrued the provisions of law to come to the conclusion that the land was an agricultural land. The learned Counsel has submitted that in order to qualify the land to be an agricultural land the assessee has to use such land for agricultural purposes by carrying out agricultural activities at least two years

2 TXA/21/2016 prior to the sale of the property. The learned Counsel further submits that this aspect has not been considered by the learned Tribunal and, consequently, the finding are perverse. The learned Counsel has further taken us through the impugned orders and pointed out that both, the Commissioner of Income Tax as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have misconstrued the relevant provisions of law to come to the conclusion that the subject land is an agricultural land. The learned Counsel has also submitted that inspection report of the Assessing Officer has been disbelieved by the Commissioner of Income Tax whilst deciding the appeal preferred by the Assessee.The learned Counsel, as such, submits that there is a substantial question of law which arises in the above appeal.

3.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel and we have also gone though the records. On perusal of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal there is a categorical finding of fact that the subject land has cashew trees, mango trees and other fruit bearing trees therein. This itself implies that the land was an agricultural land. Apart form that, the records also reveal that the respondent/Assessee had sought permission for a farm house which would also mean that such land is an agricultural land. Besides that, the Tribunal whilst dismissing the appeal has taken into consideration the guidelines settled by the Apex Court to ascertain the nature of the agricultural land.

3 TXA/21/2016

4.

In such circumstances, we find that there is no perversity in the finding arrived at by the authorities below. The concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the authorities below cannot be interfered in the present appeal unless there is perversity in such findings. No perversity in such finding has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Hence, no case made out for admission of the above appeal. Hence, the appeal stands rejected. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. F. M. REIS, J. NH

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →