The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. P.ashok Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case Appeal No.268 of 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai ... Appellant -vs- P.Ashok Kumar ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate TribunalMadras 'D' Bench, dated 20.01.2011 in ITA No.1581/Mds/2010 forthe assessment year 2007-08 against an order under section 143(3) of the I.T.Act, dated 24.12.2009 passed by the DCIT, CircleI, Chennai against PAN/GIR No. . For Appellant: Mrs.V.PushpaFor Respondent : Mrs.Sree Lakshmivalli J U D G M E N T Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] This appeal by the Revenue is filed under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the "Act") against theorder dated 20.01.2011 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'D' Bench in ITA No.1581/Mds/2010 for theassessment year 2007-08. 2. This Appeal has been admitted on the followingSubstantial Questions of Law:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in treating theland sold by the assessee as an agricultural landfalling outside the purview of the capital assetand consequently holding that the no capitalgains tax is leviable on the sale of land? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatnon cultivation of piece of land does not looseits character of agricultural land unless theuser had specifically got changed the nature ofthe land?" 3. Heard Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant/Revenue and Mrs.Sree Lakshmivalli, learned counsel forthe respondent. 4. The short issue which falls for consideration is whetherthe land which was sold by the assessee was an agricultural landor not. We need not labour much to answer the question sincethe first Appellate authority viz., the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) as well as the Tribunal have made athorough factual exercise and found that the land sold by theassessee was sold as an agricultural land. More importantly,the CIT (A) called for a remand report from the AssessingOfficer as to the distance between the property in question andthe outer limit of the notified municipality. 5. The Assessing Officer conducted inspection of theproperty in the presence of revenue officials and submitted aremand report, in which, it has been categorically stated thatthe land is situated at a distance of more than 8 kms away fromthe outer limits of St.Thomas Mount Cantonment Board. Thus, theremand report was taken into consideration by the CIT (A) as oneof the factors for allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.Apart from that, CIT (A) also referred to the certificate issuedby the Tahsildar and one of the important entry in the saidcertificate is by stating that the lands are classified asagricultural lands. Though the certificate may state that thereis no cultivation carried on the lands as per the land records,there is nothing on record to show that the land in question wasput to use for any non-agricultural purposes. Apart from thatthe assessee has also paid taxes which has been recorded by theCIT(A). 6. Thus, we are of the considered view that the concurrent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ factual findings recorded by the first Appellate Authority andthe Tribunal does not call for any interference. Hence, we areof the considered view that no substantial questions of law havearisen for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, theappeal stands dismissed. No costs. 6. Thus, we are of the considered view that the concurrent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ factual findings recorded by the first Appellate Authority andthe Tribunal does not call for any interference. Hence, we areof the considered view that no substantial questions of law havearisen for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, theappeal stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarsvkiTo1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench,Madras.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI,121, Mahathma Gandhi Road, Chennai 34.3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-1, Chennai 34.+1 cc to M/s.N.Muthukumar, Advocate Sr.No.230+1 cc to M/s.M.Swaminathan, Advocate Sr.No.73T.C.A.No.268 of 2011RGN(CO)CSL/03.04.2019