TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t no reasonable person would, in the relevant field, have not have arrived at the final finding and conclusion as drawn and under challenge. The test and parameter whether an order or judgment is perverse are rather strict. Even if we were to form a different opinion on evidence, we would not categorize the impugned order as a perverse order. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. - INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 327/2017 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2018 - MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly Mr. Sidhartha Joshi, Advocates. Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Piyush Goyal, Advocate. SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act , for short) by Rajiv Dass ( appellant-assessee , for short) relates to Assessment Year 2009-10 and arises from the order dated 2nd December, 2016 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal , for short). 2. The contention of the appellant-assessee is that the findings recorded by the Tribunal to deny benefit of exemption under Section 54B of the Act are perverse and contrary to the facts on record. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dertaken the said activity on behalf of the appellant-assessee. Referring to the statement of Amar Pal Singh, it was urged that statement has been misconstrued and misinterpreted. 6. To examine the question of perversity, we would like to reproduce the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding use of land for agricultural purpose. The findings read as under:- 19. We, thus, observe that as per section 54B of the Act, the following two conditions required to be fulfilled simultaneously for availing exemption u/s 54B of the Act: (i) the capital gains arises from transfer of a capital asset being agricultural land in the year immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place was being used for agricultural purposes by the assessee being individual or his parents or Hindu Undivided Family for agricultural purposes, and (ii) the assessee from the amount of capital gain arised from sale of agricultural land has purchased any other land, being used for agricultural purposes within two years after the said date he transferred the earlier land/original asset. 20. Keeping in view the above conditions, when we analyse the facts of the present case, then w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have noted above that he is a resident of H.No. 732, Razapur, Ghaziabad, and not a resident of village Noor Nagar, where the land in question is situated and land is not situated at village Siani. (iv) Replying to question No. 13, he stated that except land of assessee, he never took any other land on patta [or batai] which again shows that he never took any other land from any other person prior to or after this land of the assessee, thus we presume that it was the only transaction of batai. Inability of Shri Amar Pal Singh to narrate Khasra No. and wrong particulars about situation of land further fortify the conclusion recorded by the authorities below that he is not a genuine person who took land in question for agricultural purposes and activities from the assessee; (v) Replying to question No. 18, he nailed the last nail to the coffin of the assessee's case wherein he stated that he himself sold the crop in Ghaziabad in Mandi and further stated that he is unable to submit receipts [parchi] of sale of crop which again makes his statement baseless and unbelievable. 23. In this situation, we decline to accept the contention of the Id. AR that the assessee un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andfurther queries raised by you, the assessee begs to submit.as under: 1.The assessee had purchased agricultural land in Noor Nagarin the year November 2005 and then resorted to operations which were absolutely necessary for the purpose of effectively raising the produce from the land. The assessee was then engaged in operations as weeding, digging the soil around the growth, removal of undesirable undergrowth's and all operations, which foster the growth and preserve the same not only from insects and pests but also from depredation from outside, like tending, pruning, etc. The assessee then started the cultivation of the land including tilling of the land, sowing of the seeds, planting and similar operations on the land were carried on thereafter. The assessee had already submitted the details of farmer (Sh. Amar Pal Singh), the copy of agreement etc. to whom the land had been given on Patta basis for verification by the department. The assessee had grown wheat and Jai (OATs) on the said land in the preceding two years. The assessee had shown ₹ 40,000/ - as agricultural income in Assessment Year 2008-2009 and ₹ 47,500/ - as agricultural income in Assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory but not rebutted to the report of Tehsildar which was Ghaziabad based on the Revenue record kept by the U.P.Government and it is also a well know procedure that the Patwari keeps and updates the Revenue records on every crop season for multiple use of data by the Government and this ground level report has to be presumed as self proven until and unless rebutted by sufficient explanation or evidence. In the present case, the assessee on being given opportunity to rebut the same did, not utter- any word in his reply [supra] filed before this AO. Thus, we decline to accept the contention of the assessee that the report of the Tehsildar Ghaziabad was not confronted to him by the AO. 27. Per contra, we clearly observe that it was very well confronted to the AO but not controverted to disputed by the assessee thus the authorities below were correct in relying the report of the Tehsildar Ghaziabad for accepting the fact that no agricultural activities were carried out on the land after purchase on 11.11.2005 during F.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, thus, the assessee failed to comply with the first pre condition as required by Section 54B of the Act that the capital gain on tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Rabi and the Kharif season of the Fasli year 1415 respectively, but the aforesaid recordings have been disbelieved and not accepted for cogent and good reasons. Admittedly, the appellant-assessee had not himself undertaken agricultural activities. He had not incurred any expenditure on agricultural activities, engaged of labour, purchase seeds or sold the harvest. Appellant-assessee had claimed that he had given the land on batai to Amar Pal Singh. 9. Before referring to the statement of Amar Pal Singh, we would note and record that the appellant had declared agricultural income of ₹ 40,000/- and ₹ 47,500/- in his returns for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 200910 on receipt basis.These returns had been processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. During the course of the present assessment the appellant-assessee in response to the queries vide letter dated 27th December, 2011 had stated that jai (oat) was grown on the land during the preceding year and that during the period 2007-08 the appellant had received bags of wheat grown on the land. Further, the appellant-assessee had spent ₹ 47.84 lakhs towards leveling, development and filling of land and constru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
