2025 (2) TMI 658 - HC - Income Tax

Nature of land sold - taxing surplus arising on sale of agricultural land by accepting the same as Capital Assets - a s argued said land was an agricultural land till the date of sale and which was evident from 7/12 extract of Land Revenue - Whether appellant land was a agricultural land as provided u/s. 2 (14) (iii) of the Act and therefore not a capital asset? - HELD THAT - This is not a case where the authorities have not considered the material placed on record by the assessee. However after considering and evaluating such material and weighing it against the other material available on record the three authorities have concluded the property in question was not used for any agricultural purpose by the assessee. None of the three authorities has violated any legal principles regarding evaluating such material. In an appeal u/s 260A there is no question of this Court going into the sufficiency and adequacy of evidence. This Court is not exercising powers of the First Appellate Court when dealing with appeals u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act. In this case the findings of fact are supported by more than adequate material on record. Shri Shankar Dalal 2017 (4) TMI 190 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT 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. Decided against assessee.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED:- Whether the Tribunal was justified in taxing surplus arising on the sale of agricultural land as Capital Assets.- Whether the land in question qualified as agricultural land under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act.- Whether the Tribunal erred in following a previous decision that was factually distinguishable.- Whether the Tribunal's order was perverse and contrary to the facts on record.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS:The Court considered the appellant's challenge to the findings of fact by the Assessing Officer (AO), First Assessing Officer (FAA), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that the land in question was not used for agricultural purposes. The appellant argued that the land was indeed used for agricultural activities, citing the 7/12 extract of Land Revenue and ledger entries as evidence. The appellant also relied on legal precedents to support the contention that findings of fact can give rise to a substantial question of law if based on no evidence or if relevant evidence was not considered.The Court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the revenue record, ledger entries, and the appellant's admission about the lack of agricultural activities on the land. The Court noted the proximity of the property to developed areas and the commercial development of the land into plots. The Court emphasized that the three authorities had thoroughly considered all evidence and circumstances before concluding that the property was not used for agricultural purposes.The Court addressed the appellant's argument that the decisions relied upon were distinguishable and not applicable to the present case. The Court analyzed previous judgments cited by both parties and found that they were based on specific facts that did not align with the facts of the current case. The Court emphasized that the findings of fact by the three authorities were supported by adequate evidence and there was no perversity in their conclusions.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS:The Court concluded that there was no perversity in the findings of fact by the three authorities and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no reasonable grounds existed to interfere with the concurrent findings. The Court emphasized that the decisions relied upon by the appellant were not applicable to the current case, and no legal principles were violated in the evaluation of evidence.In summary, the Court upheld the findings of fact by the authorities that the land in question was not used for agricultural purposes, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the lack of any substantial question of law.