9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw in taxing surplus of Rs. 1,99,56,849/- arising on sale of agricultural land by accepting the same as Capital Assets, without appreciating that, the said land was an agricultural land till the date of sale and which was evident from 7/12 extract of Land Revenue ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant land was a agricultural land as provided u/s. 2 (14) (iii) of the Act and therefore not a capital asset? c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant Tribunal erred in following the ratio of the decision in the case of Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim & Ors. (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC) which is factually distinguishable ? d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were not applied in appreciating the evidence or where the evidence has not been decided. 6. Mr. Jain submitted that the decision in the Sarifabibi (Supra) case was distinguishable and did not apply to the facts of the present case. He submitted that in Sarifabibi (Supra), there was admission that no agricultural activities were undertaken on the land in question. He further submitted that the three authorities erred in relying upon Sarifabibi (Supra). 7. Mr. Jain relying on Shri Shankar Dalal & Ors Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji-Goa 2017 (4) TMI 190, Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Poona Vs H.V. Mungale 1982 SCC OnLine Bom 161 and PR. Commissioner of Income Tax Central -4 Vs Smt Mamta Parekh 2019 (1) TMI 867 submitted that the Coo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd were not applicable in the facts of the present case. For all these reasons, He submits that this appeal involves no question of law, much less any substantial question of law. He urged for dismissal of this appeal. 11. Rival contentions now fall for our determination. 12. As is evident, this case entirely turns on the appreciation of factual material on record. The AO, FAA, and ITAT have recorded concurrent findings that the property in question was not used for agricultural purposes. Practically, the entire material and all the contentions now raised before us were considered by the three authorities threadbare. 13. Therefore, unless the appellant can make out a case of perversity i.e. case that the factual finding is based on (no e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have referred to the assessee's admission about not undertaking agricultural activities and considered the improvement made to this statement by saying that since the net income from the agricultural activities after excluding the expenses involved was negligible, no complete disclosures were made regarding the agricultural income. 16. The authorities have considered the effect of clauses in the conveyances by which the assessee purchased this property. These clauses referred to such sale being made for development purposes. The three authorities have also considered the conveyance by which the assessee, after developing this property into plots, sold the same to other parties. The three authorities have also considered the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nother stance. From the perusal of the three orders, we agree with the fact-finding authorities that the assessee was bent upon adopting inconsistent and contrary stances on the issue of property being used for agricultural purposes. The various inferences drawn by the three fact-finding authorities from the holistic consideration of the material on record are most reasonable and can hardly be described as perverse. The FAA had observed that one could not ignore the fact that the property under reference was near Kalyan, Bhiwandi, and suburban parts of Mumbai. From this, the FAA correctly inferred that this property was embedded with commercial opportunity and viability for commercial exploitation. The future conduct of the assessee has onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority, i.e. ITAT. Shri Shankar Dalal (Supra) was a matter where the ITAT had recorded a finding that 1/5th of the land was cultivated, and the balance 4/5th was not agricultural land. The Coordinate Bench of this Court found no basis for making such a distinction and, therefore, interfered with the ITAT's conclusion. 23. So also in Mamta Parekh (Supra), the revenue was in appeal, and this Court did not think that the ITAT's finding suffered from any perversity. Besides, as noted earlier, all these decisions turned on their facts, which are incomparable to the facts in the present matter. Therefore, based on these three decisions, no case is made to entertain this appeal. 24. We note that in this matter, the appellant did not even b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
