The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 2, Nagpur v. Shri Amol Ashok Nilawar, Yavatmal)Andincome Tax Appeal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2015 (The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Nagpur vs. Shri Amol Ashok Nilawar, Yavatmal)ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2015 (The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Nagpur vs. SMT. Anjali Anil Bajoria, Yavatmal) Office Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.JANUARY 04, 2016. Heard Shri Mohata, learned counsel for theappellant and Shri Thakkar with Shri Tejal Patil,learned counsel for the respondent. Question No. 1 which reads as under israised as substantial question of law : “1.Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case in law, the Hon'ble ITAT hasjustified in deleting the addition made by the AssessingOfficer as business income on account of receipt from saleof barren agricultural land which was never used foragricultural purpose either by the assessee or by theprevious owner and subsequently sold to the builderwithin the span of 45 days to earn more profit from thedealing of so called land ?” Thus, the question has been formulated onthe premise that it is sale of barren agricultural landwhich was never used for agricultural purpose either bythe assessee or by previous owner. The ITAT in paragraph 4 of the impugned order specifically recorded that the Sub-DivisionalOfficer has issued 7/12 certificate as per MaharashtraLand Revenue Code and as per that certificate, cropswere grown on subject land till the date of its sale.There is no specific challenge to this finding as eitherperverse or erroneous. According to Shri Thakkar, learned counsel,as the land is at a distance of 8.70 kms i.e. beyond 8kms of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, the issue iscovered by the judgment dated 30.03.2015 delivered bythis Court in ITL No. 120 of 2013 (The Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Nagpur vs. Nitish Rameshchandra Ghordia,Nagpur) and other connected matters. The appeal memo is drawn by Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Nagpur. In view of the above observations, as afinding of fact reached by the I.T.A.T. is not beingassailed either as perverse or erroneous, the questionnoted above cannot fall for consideration. No substantial question of law, therefore,arises. Both the Income Tax Appeals are rejected. Nocosts. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.