9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (7) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome liable to be assessed." On a former occasion when the case came up for hearing, this court, after hearing the parties, thought it necessary for a satisfactory decision, to require the Appellate Tribunal to furnish further information on the following two points : (1) whether the prices of the lands in the five instances were debited to the personal account of the assessee, or to the money-lending account or any other account ; and (2) whether the separate account referred to in the statement of the case and in which the income from the lands and the expenditure therefor are said to have been entered included income from and expenditure for the agricultural lands also. The Appellate Tribunal found that the required information was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sold in the assessment year 1954-55 for which the previous year is the financial year, ending with March 31, 1954. As a result, an amount of Rs. 19,795 was realised in excess of what the assessee may be deemed to have paid for the same at the time he acquired the lands. These are all the admitted facts. The dispute is only in relation to the taxability of the said excess amount realised. Whereas the contention of the assessee is that these lands after acquisition were kept separate and the income realised therefrom did not go to arugment the resources of the money-lending business, the contention of the department is otherwise. The Appellate Tribunal, to the finding of which finality is attached, as a matter of fact, found that the account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nction made between the income and expenditure of the agricultural lands which have been sold in the accounting year and also the other lands which were with the assessee. It is thus obvious that there was sufficient evidence on record in relation to the treatment of lands by the assessee after acquisition which is in direct conflict with the case now advanced by him. As has been held in Alapati Ramaswami v. Commissioner of Income-tax, it is always a question of fact whether the property purchased by a money-lender in discharge of loans advanced by him forms part of stock-in-trade of his business. That must depend upon whether, after purchase, he treated the properties as part of the stock-in-trade of the business by his acts, such as, incl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
