Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1209 - MADRAS HIGH COURTSale of land - Nature of land at the time of transfer - whether till the lands were sold in the financial year 2010-11, they were used for agricultural purpose and not capital assets? - Held that:- From the material on record, it could be deduced that the respondent has discharged his burden and proved that the lands were agricultural lands, at the time of transfer. Sufficient evidence has been adduced by the respondent, to prove that the subject lands have been put to agricultural operations before sale. Classification of the lands, in the revenue records, as agricultural lands, is not varied and that is a determinative factor. A substantial question of law does not arise on the findings of fact, unless it is substantiated that there is perversity. In Bhagat Construction Co. (P) Ltd., v. CIT reported in (2000 (12) TMI 54 - DELHI High Court ), the Delhi High Court held that a question of fact, becomes a question of law, if the finding is either without any evidence or material or, if the finding is contrary to the evidence, or is perverse or there is no direct nexus between the conclusion of fact and the primary fact upon which that conclusion is based. But it is not possible to turn a mere question of fact into a question of law by asking whether as a matter of law the authority came to the correct conclusion on a matter of fact. In M.Janardhana Rao v. Joint CIT reported in (2005 (1) TMI 14 - SUPREME Court ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in exercise of the powers under Section 260A, findings of fact of the Tribunal cannot be disturbed. Going through the material on record, we are of the considered view that the concurrent findings of fact, rendered by the CIT (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, do not call for any interference, as no substantial question of law, is involved.
|