Itta/518/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Smt. Tadavarthy Kanakavalli

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A.NO.518 of 2011 Dated: 05-02-2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax,Rajkamal Complex, Laxmipuram Main Road,Guntur-7. And Smt Tadavarthy KanakavalliW/o.Dasaradha Rama Rao,H.No.10-14-122(7),Railpet,Repalle. …Appellant …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A.No.518 of 2011 ORDER:( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Senior Standing Counsel forIncome Tax, for the appellant and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya, learnedsenior counsel, instructed by Sri Kartikeya, for the respondent-assessee. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) is preferred against the Order of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, dated 04.07.2011 rejectingthe appeal by the Revenue bearing reference I.T.No.74/Vizag/ 2011 alongwith Cross-Objection No.3/Vizag/2011. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against theOrder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guntur. TheCommissioner (Appeals) had reversed the Order of Assessment dated31.12.2009 in respect of the assessee’s return for the assessment year2007-08 and held that the addition by the Assessing Authority of an incomeaccrued from the sale of agricultural land treating the same as capital gainswas unsustainable as the income had accrued from agricultural propertyand not from an Adventure in the nature of trade. On an analysis of the record and due consideration of the Order ofAssessment and the Appellate Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), theTribunal rejected the contention of the Revenue that the intention of the assessee in making the investment is to indulge in trading or purchase andsale of agricultural property as a business proposition; that there is somematerial to show that the assessee has leased out the land in question forcarrying out agricultural operations and had declared lease rent asagricultural income; that the lands were sold to an individual and not to aninformation technology company as alleged; and that on consideration of allthe relevant factors, the sale transaction cannot be considered as anadventure in the nature of trade. The Order of the Appellate Authority wasconfirmed by the Tribunal in the circumstances. In the context of the issues presented for consideration before theTribunal and findings of the Tribunal, we find no question of law, much lessa substantial question of law arising in this appeal under Section 260-A ofthe Act. This appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. Nocosts. As a consequence of dismissal of the appeal, miscellaneouspetitions filed in this appeal shall also stand dismissed. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,J February 5, 2013 kvr/kkm