9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 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 Coordinate Benches of this Court, in facts very similar to those in the present case, had held that the land in question was being used for agricultural purposes. He submitted that the findings recorded by the three authorities conflict with the ratios of these decisions, and therefore, the findings warrant interference. 8. Mr. Suresh Kumar learned counsel for the respondents defends the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three authorities. He submitted that the three authorities have, in detail, dealt with the material on record, including the entry in the survey records or the so-called ledger entries and recorded clear and categorical finding of fact. He submitted that the three authorities have also considered seve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , that was by no means any conclusive piece of evidence, as was explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi (Supra). Similarly, the authorities have dealt with the selfserving ledger entries but quite correctly disbelieved those entries. Even after indulging the assessee, the authorities have held that those expenses are consistent with even the commercial development of the property in question. 15. After elaborately examining the effect of survey records and other evidence that the assessee relied upon, the three authorities have recorded clear and cogent findings of fact. The authorities 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 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has only confirmed this. 20. 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. 21. In an appeal under Section 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 under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. In this case, the findings of fact are supported by more than adequate material on record. The three authorities have ignored no vital pieces of evidence. There are no allegations that the findings are based on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. No legal principle concerning the appreciation of evidence has been violated. Considering all these circumstances, we see no reasonable ground to entertain this appeal. 22. The decisions relied upon by Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
