Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur, District - Raipur (C.g v. Shri Madan Lal Lodha

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR NAFR TAXC No. 79 of 2018 {Arising out of Order dated 18.01.2018 passed in ITA No. 349/RPR/2014 by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur}Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur} Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ---- Appellant Versus Shri Madan Lal Lodha, 109/110, Textile Market, Pandari, Raipur District - Raipur(C.G.)(C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant :Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate.Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief JusticeHon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 25.06.2019 1.The appeal is preferred at the instance of the Revenue. The following questionshave been raised as substantial questions of law:have been raised as substantial questions of law: “1.Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in confirming the deletionby the CIT(A) of the addition of Rs. 3,39,49,274/- by the AO onaccount disallowances of deduction u/s 54B of the Act.? case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in confirming the deletionby the CIT(A) of the addition of Rs. 3,39,49,274/- by the AO onaccount disallowances of deduction u/s 54B of the Act.? 2.Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in confirming the order ofLd. CIT(A), thereby ignoring the evidence brought on recordby the AO that the no agricultural activity was done onimpugned land prior to sale of the land?case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in confirming the order ofLd. CIT(A), thereby ignoring the evidence brought on recordby the AO that the no agricultural activity was done onimpugned land prior to sale of the land? 3.Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in confirming the order ofcase, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in confirming the order of CIT(A), who having concurrent powers of the AO u/s 250(4) ofthe Act, has deleted the addition of Rs. 3,39,49,274/- made bythe AO thereby relying on the submission of the assesseewhich has no evidentiary value and which was found not trueon verification by the land revenue authority? 4.Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT by confirming the finding of CIT(A) haserred in giving a finding which is contrary to the ratio of thedecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SarifabibiMohammed Ibrahim and others Vs CIT(SC) 204 ITR 631?case, the Hon'ble ITAT by confirming the finding of CIT(A) haserred in giving a finding which is contrary to the ratio of thedecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SarifabibiMohammed Ibrahim and others Vs CIT(SC) 204 ITR 631? 5.Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in confirming the order of Ld.CIT(A) thereby giving a decision in favour of the assessee andagainst the revenue though there is no nexus between theconclusion of fact and primary fact upon which conclusion isbased?case, the ITAT was justified in confirming the order of Ld.CIT(A) thereby giving a decision in favour of the assessee andagainst the revenue though there is no nexus between theconclusion of fact and primary fact upon which conclusion isbased? 5.Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in confirming the order of Ld.CIT(A) thereby giving a decision in favour of the assessee andagainst the revenue though there is no nexus between theconclusion of fact and primary fact upon which conclusion isbased?case, the ITAT was justified in confirming the order of Ld.CIT(A) thereby giving a decision in favour of the assessee andagainst the revenue though there is no nexus between theconclusion of fact and primary fact upon which conclusion isbased? 6.Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT by upholding the order of CIT(A) haserred by giving a finding which is contrary to the evidence onrecord, as the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the bills produced bythe assessee towards the alleged agricultural activities, to begenuine and relied on other impugned documents producedbefore him by the assessee to be genuine, a finding which isfactually incorrect thereby rendering the decision, which isperverse?”case, the Hon'ble ITAT by upholding the order of CIT(A) haserred by giving a finding which is contrary to the evidence onrecord, as the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the bills produced bythe assessee towards the alleged agricultural activities, to begenuine and relied on other impugned documents producedbefore him by the assessee to be genuine, a finding which isfactually incorrect thereby rendering the decision, which isperverse?” 2.Heard Ms. Naushina Ali, learned Standing counsel for the Department ofRevenue.Revenue. 3.The sequence of events reveals that the assessment in respect of theassessment year 2011-12 was finalized by the Assessing Officer as per orderAnnexure A/3, dated 27.03.2014. The stand taken by the Assessee with regardto the contents in the return was repelled and the Assessing Officer found thatthe Assessee was not entitled to have the benefit under Section 54B of theIncome Tax Act insofar as there was no agricultural operation in the landassessment year 2011-12 was finalized by the Assessing Officer as per orderAnnexure A/3, dated 27.03.2014. The stand taken by the Assessee with regardto the contents in the return was repelled and the Assessing Officer found thatthe Assessee was not entitled to have the benefit under Section 54B of theIncome Tax Act insofar as there was no agricultural operation in the land concerned which was subjected to sale within the prescribed period of twoyears prior to the date of sale. 4.According to the learned Standing Counsel, the factual aspect in this regard wassubstantiated by calling for a report from the Patwari who certified that therewas no agricultural operation within the stipulated period. It was accordinglythat a finding was rendered by the Assessing Officer that no exemption couldbe granted, which led to the assessment order. The Assessee being aggrievedwith the said order, sought to have it challenged before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals). After calling for the record and after evaluating the factsand figures, a finding was rendered with reference to the facts and figures thatthe stand of the Assessee was liable to be sustained in turn, leading to allowingthe appeal. 5.The Revenue felt aggrieved who approached the Tribunal by filing an Appeal,but turned to be unsuccessful, whereby the appeal came to be dismissed bythe Tribunal. This is sought to be challenged by filing the present appeal underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, raising the questions of law as extractedalready. 6.The learned Standing counsel submits that the finding rendered is not inconformity with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarifa bibiconformity with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarifa bibi 5.The Revenue felt aggrieved who approached the Tribunal by filing an Appeal,but turned to be unsuccessful, whereby the appeal came to be dismissed bythe Tribunal. This is sought to be challenged by filing the present appeal underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, raising the questions of law as extractedalready. 6.The learned Standing counsel submits that the finding rendered is not inconformity with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarifa bibiconformity with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarifa bibi Mohmed Ibrahim (Smt) & Others. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat;{(1993) Supp (4) SCC 707}. We have analyzed the merit of the saidsubmission with reference to the materials on record. There is no dispute withregard to the law laid down by the Apex Court, as applicable to the case onhand. On going through the materials as aforesaid, it is seen that the Appellantdid not make any specific reference (in the manner in which the appeal has nowbeen moulded before this Court) to be considered by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) or by the Tribunal. The submission before the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal was all with reference to the factualaspect as to the necessity to have the agricultural operation in the propertyconcerned which was subjected to sale within the span of two years inconformity with the mandate of Section 54B of the Income Tax Act. This wasconsidered by the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal on the basis of thematerials on record and a finding was rendered accordingly. This being theposition, the finding rendered by the Commissioner, which was subjected toscrutiny and the finding given by the Tribunal is purely on a question of factsand no question of law is involved in this appeal; much less any substantialquestion of law. 7.Interference is declined. Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (P.R. Ramachandra Menon)(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Chief Justice Judge