Income Tax Appeal v. Shri Ashok Manilal Gupta

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2013(The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Ashok Manilal Gupta) _______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directionsand Registrar's Orders. Court's or Judge's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &S.B. SHUKRE, JJ.APRIL 08, 2015. Heard Shri Parchure, learned counsel for theappellant and Shri Bhattad, learned counsel for therespondent. Shri Parchure, learned counsel submits that sale ofland at Khasra No. 79 by assessee is a venture and saleconsideration cannot be viewed as agricultural income. Hepoints out that the assessee basically is a Khowa trader andhis income from agricultural lands with him is not too much.Here, by selling land just within 11 months after its purchase,profit in excess of Rs. One crore has been made and bypointing out that it has been sold, agricultural provisions ofSection 2(14) of the Income-Tax Act, are being defeated. Hehas taken us through the questions of law as framed in memoof appeal. Shri Bhattad, learned counsel, points out thatIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has as a matter of factfound other lands under cultivation and in possession ofassessee since 1999-2000. It has also found agriculturalincome and in that background it has appreciated the controversy. The fact that the land is situated beyond 8 kms.from Corporation limit is also then taken into account torecord a finding that it is not an asset under Section 2(14) ofthe Income Tax Act. We have perused the order of ITAT. In para 7, theITAT has found that there are many agricultural lands ownedby the assessee. It found that details of agricultural incomeand agricultural lands are placed at page Nos. 1 & 2 of thecompilation before it. It has then given few details thereofalong with income disclosed to conclude that assessee wasproducing agricultural produce. Here, though the land has been sold just after 11months, its purchase as agricultural land is not in dispute.The ITAT has found that land was sold on acreage basis andnot on square feet basis and in that background has acceptedthat it was sold as a agricultural land. Shri Parchure, learned counsel has submitted thatthis Khasra No. 79 is situated on Wardha road near thedeveloping area and the purchaser has purchased it forstarting an industrial unit. However, the fact that it has beensold and purchased as agricultural land is not in dispute. Thefinding of fact recorded by the ITAT to that effect has notbeen questioned. As such, we find that no substantial question oflaw arises. Income-Tax Appeal is rejected. No order as tocosts. JUDGE *GS. JUDGE