TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the finding that the assessee was neither in possession of the agricultural land nor he performed any agricultural activity. Therefore, the question of earning any agricultural income does not arise. The aforesaid findings are pure findings of facts which have been recorded on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record. The aforesaid findings have not been shown to be perverse. It is well settled that this court in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act cannot interfere with the finding of fact until and unless the same is demonstrated to be perverse. [See: SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA VS. MALAN BI BY L.RS. AND ORS. [ 2016 (10) TMI 1233 - SUPREME COURT] and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE ORS. VS. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and brining into tax as income from other sources and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case? (iv) Without prejudice whether the tribunal is justified in law in holding that the provisions of Section 68 is applicable when the appellant has not maintained books of accounts on the facts and circumstances of the case? (v) Whether the tribunal was justified in law in not condoning the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2005-06 declaring taxable income of ₹ 75,350/- earned by way of liaison commission on sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out agricultural activities. The assessee approached the bank to avail the loan for the said purpose. It is also pointed out that from the statement of the landlords relied upon by the Assessing Officer, it is evident that the assessee had not made any unexplained investment by way of lease advance, booking under construction, development of farm and animal sheds etc. It is also contended that the Assessing Officer is not correct in making an addition of ₹ 28,35,500/- as income from other sources where the statement of affairs have been proved to be false by his very findings. The tribunal ought to have held that the Assessing Officer was wrong in treating the agricultural income shown by the assessee in his return of income from unex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Our attention has also been invited to the findings recorded by the Assessing Authority as well as in para 6.4 to 6.5 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and in para 10 by the tribunal and has held that the assessee does not own agricultural land and the sale of agricultural produce has rightly been disbelieved. It is further submitted that the aforesaid findings are finding of fact and therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', 330 ITR 1. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding that the assessee was neither in possession of the agricultural land nor he performed any agricultural activity. Therefore, the question of earning any agricultural income does not arise. 6. The aforesaid findings are pure findings of facts which have been recorded on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record. The aforesaid findings have not been shown to be perverse. It is well settled that this court in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act cannot interfere with the finding of fact until and unless the same is demonstrated to be perverse. [See: SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA VS. MALAN BI BY L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE ORS. VS. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD., (2018) 406 ITR 513 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|