Itta/219/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 219 of 2014 Date: 02.04.2014 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Hyderabad. … Appellant And M/s. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt., Ltd.,Karimnagar. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 219 of 2014 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 05.09.2013 in relation tothe assessment year 2009-10 on the following suggested question oflaw. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the land sold was anagricultural land without examining the question, whether the ownerwould have ever sold the land valuing it as a property yieldingagricultural produce on the basis of its yield and whether anagriculturist would purchase the land for agricultural purpose at theprice at which the land was sold, as laid down by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Sarafabibi Mohammed Ibrahim 204ITR 631?” We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gonethrough the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal taking note of the above decision of theHon’ble Supreme Court has decided two things. The test which isrequired to be held is that whether a particular land is an agricultural landor not and the Supreme Court judgment was also applied in this case bythe learned Tribunal. After considering a large number of decisions of various High Courts, the learned Tribunal has come to a fact finding that the land inquestion is an agricultural one. The learned Tribunal has taken note ofthe Central Government notification and applied the definition asmentioned in clause (a) of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and found that thesubject land is an agricultural land and it is not put to use for non-agricultural purpose. The fact finding of the learned Tribunal cannot beup set, unless it is perverse and there is no allegation of perversity in thematter. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ___________________SANJAY KUMAR, J