PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. K. SHANTHI

PDF · subscribers
TCA/784/2018HC Madras15 October 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the ground that the matter was covered under the Low Tax Effect as per Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law arising in this appeal are kept open to be decided at a later point of time. Therefore, the Tribunal's findings on the characterization of the land as agricultural were not adjudicated on merits by the High Court in this appeal. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore (Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'D' Bench, dated 02.02.2018, passed in I.T.A.No.433/Mds/2017. The appeal was admitted by the High Court on substantial questions of law concerning whether the land sold by the assessee, K. Shanthi, was agricultural land, despite being barren and with no agricultural activity recorded from 2002-03 onwards according to a Village Administrative Officer's certificate. The Revenue also questioned the ITAT's finding that lands purchased by the assessee were agricultural, given they were barren and no agricultural activity was undertaken post-purchase.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the land sold by the assessee was an agricultural land, ignoring the fact that the land sold was barren land and the Village Administrative Officer had certified that no agricultural activity was carried out from 2002-03 onwards? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, concerning the characterization of land for capital gains purposes). 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the lands purchased by the assessee were agricultural lands, ignoring the fact that the lands purchased were barren lands and the assessee had not carried out any agricultural activity subsequent to its purchase? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, concerning the characterization of land for capital gains purposes). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The lands were barren, and no agricultural activity was carried out by the assessee, as evidenced by the Village Administrative Officer's certificate. The Revenue relied on Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 concerning Low Tax Effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.784 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.10.2024 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN T.C.A.No.784 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 63, Race Course Road Coimbatore. .. Appellant Vs. K.Shanthi .. Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “D” Bench dated 02.02.2018 passed in I.T.A.No.433/Mds/2017. For the Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) The present tax case appeal was admitted on 18.12.2018 by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the land sold by the assessee was an agricultural land ignoring the fact that the land sold was barren land and the Village Administrative Officer had certified that no agricultural activity was carried out from 2002-03 onwards? Page 1 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.784 of 2018 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the lands purchased by assessee were agricultural lands ignoring the fact that the lands purchased were barren lands and assessee had not carried out any agricultural activity subsequent to its purchase?" 2. It is submitted by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant Revenue that this matter is covered under the Low Tax Effect as per the recent Circular dated 17.09.2024, in Circular No.9/2024. 3. Hence, this appeal stands dismissed, as covered under the low tax effect and the substantial questions of law arising in this appeal are kept open to be decided at the later point of time. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J) 15.10.2024 Neutral Citation:Yes/No drm Page 2 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.784 of 2018 R. SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C. SARAVANAN

, J.

(drm) T.C.A.No.784 of 2018 15.10.2024 Page 3 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 →