The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Parupati Farms

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

I.T.T.A. No. 528 of 2013

DATE: 31.10.2013

Between:

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad. … Appellant

And

Parupati Farms Hyderabad. … Respondent

This Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

I.T.T.A. No. 528 of 2013

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

By the impugned common judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has disposed of a number of appeals preferred by the Department and other assesses. However, the Tribunal found that the issue involved in those appeals is interlinked with each other. But the revenue has sought to prefer this appeal partially and confined to the following suggested questions of law. “(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order of the Tribunal is not perverse and liable to be set aside?

(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the transaction of sale of land by the assessee was not an adventure in the nature of trade?”

The aforesaid issues have been dealt with by the learned Tribunal at page No.15 of its judgment in connection with three appeals, namely; ITA.No.1932 to 1934/Hyd/2011 preferred by M/s. Parupati Farms, ITANo.1931/Hyd/2011 preferred by Shri P. Mahender Reddy and ITA.No.1995/Hyd/2011 preferred by M/s. Parupati Farms. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, found that there is no trading activity and the income derived is from the agriculture lands. In fact, the learned Tribunal has relied on its decision in Mrs. K.Radhika and

others in ITA.No.208/Hyd/2011, having found identity of facts and law in that case.

When the learned Tribunal came to the decision on appreciation of evidence, this Court cannot re-appreciate the same. Hence, no element of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

_____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 31.10.2013 ES