Itta/11/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. Smt.p.sujana

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.11 of 2014 Date: 11.02.2014 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),Hyderabad .....Appellant AND P.Sujana ...Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.11 of 2014 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted againstthe judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 19[th] July,2013 in relation to the assessment year 2006-07 on the followingsuggested questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified inholding that the lands on which no agriculturaloperations were carried out at Patighanpur andEdulanagulapally to be treated as agricultural landsbecause of situation beyond control of the assessee,without adducing valid reasons? (2) Whether the ITAT was justified in holdingthat the statement recorded from the assessee orassessee’s husband wherein the claim of exemptionwas withdrawn voluntarily and the profit on sale ofland was offered to tax had no evidentiary value in deciding that the land was not agricultural in nature? (3) Whether the ITAT was justified in givingrelief to the assessee in holding that considerationreceived from sale of land cannot be treated as liablefor capital gains tax without taking into considerationthat the assessee had voluntarily withdrawn the claimof exemption during the search and post searchinvestigation? It appears from the aforesaid suggested questions of lawthat the point for decision in this case is whether the learnedTribunal has correctly held that the land in question is anagricultural land or not. The learned Tribunal on fact found that theland in question has been recorded in the revenue records as agricultural one. In fact, during the previous assessment years,the land was used for agricultural activity. Since, it was admittedby the assessee during search and seizure operations that theland was non-agricultural one, Mr.J.V.Prasad, learned Counsel forthe appellant, wants to take advantage of the said admission. According to us, the admission is not a conclusive proof and theadmission is not to be relied on if it is explained away lawfully. Onfact based legally acceptable document, it was found that the landis an agricultural one and the same does not fall within themunicipal area. Under these circumstances, we do not find anyreason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learnedTribunal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Miscellaneous petitionspending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ __________________ 11-2-2014 Gsn SANJAY KUMAR, J