2020 (1) TMI 298 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of deduction u/s 54B - ITAT confirming the deletion by the CIT(A) of the addition by the AO on account disallowances of deduction u/s 54B - HELD THAT - Appellant did not make any specific reference (in the manner in which the appeal has now been moulded before this Court) to be considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or by the Tribunal. The submission before the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal was all with reference to the factual aspect as to the necessity to have the agricultural operation in the property concerned which was subjected to sale within the span of two years in conformity with the mandate of Section 54B of the Income Tax Act. This was considered by the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal on the basis of the materials on record and a finding was rendered accordingly. This being the position, the finding rendered by the Commissioner, which was subjected to scrutiny and the finding given by the Tribunal is purely on a question of facts and no question of law is involved in this appeal; much less any substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction u/s 54B of the Act
2. Agricultural activity on impugned land prior to sale
3. Deletion of addition by CIT(A) relying on assessee's submission
4. Contrary finding to Supreme Court decision
5. Lack of nexus between conclusion and primary fact
6. Acceptance of bills and documents by CIT(A) contrary to evidence

Issue 1: Disallowance of deduction u/s 54B of the Act
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the deletion of an addition by the CIT(A) amounting to a significant sum under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had initially disallowed the deduction, stating that there was no agricultural operation on the land sold within the prescribed period. The Assessee contested this decision, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: Agricultural activity on impugned land prior to sale
The Revenue contended that there was no agricultural activity on the land prior to its sale, as certified by the Patwari. Despite this, the CIT(A) found in favor of the Assessee based on the evidence and facts presented, ultimately allowing the appeal.

Issue 3: Deletion of addition by CIT(A) relying on assessee's submission
The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on the submission of the Assessee, which was later found to have no evidentiary value upon verification by the land revenue authority. This decision was upheld by the ITAT, leading to the present appeal.

Issue 4: Contrary finding to Supreme Court decision
The Revenue argued that the finding of the ITAT was contrary to a decision of the Supreme Court. However, upon analysis, it was determined that the Commissioner and the Tribunal had based their decisions on the factual aspect of the case rather than a question of law, rendering the appeal unsubstantial.

Issue 5: Lack of nexus between conclusion and primary fact
The ITAT's decision was criticized for lacking a nexus between the conclusion in favor of the Assessee and the primary fact on which it was based. Despite this argument, the Court found that the decisions made by the lower authorities were factual and did not involve any substantial question of law.

Issue 6: Acceptance of bills and documents by CIT(A) contrary to evidence
The CIT(A) accepted bills and documents presented by the Assessee as genuine, despite the contrary evidence on record. This decision was challenged by the Revenue, but the Court declined to interfere, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, finding no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of factual considerations in tax matters and the limited scope for interference by higher courts in such cases.