The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji v. Mrs. Sanjana S. Morajkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2016 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI. Versus MRS. SANJANA S. MORAJKAR. ... Appellant ... Respondent Ms. Asha A. Desai, Advocate for the Appellant. -Coram:F. M. REIS &NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.-Date:29th March, 2016 ORAL ORDER : (Per F.M. REIS, J.) Heard Ms. Asha Desai, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. The above appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Actchallenges the orders passed by the authorities below whereby theycame to the conclusion that the subject land was agricultural land andnot subject to capital gains. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that both theauthorities below have misconstrued the provisions of law to come tothe conclusion that the land was an agricultural land. The learnedCounsel has submitted that in order to qualify the land to be anagricultural land the assessee has to use such land for agriculturalpurposes by carrying out agricultural activities at least two years prior to the sale of the property. The learned Counsel further submitsthat this aspect has not been considered by the learned Tribunal and,consequently, the finding are perverse. The learned Counsel hasfurther taken us through the impugned orders and pointed out thatboth, the Commissioner of Income Tax as well as the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal have misconstrued the relevant provisions of lawto come to the conclusion that the subject land is an agricultural land. The learned Counsel has also submitted that inspection report of theAssessing Officer has been disbelieved by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax whilst deciding the appeal preferred by the Assessee.Thelearned Counsel, as such, submits that there is a substantial questionof law which arises in the above appeal. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions ofthe learned Counsel and we have also gone though the records. Onperusal of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal there is acategorical finding of fact that the subject land has cashew trees,mango trees and other fruit bearing trees therein. This itself impliesthat the land was an agricultural land. Apart form that, the recordsalso reveal that the respondent/Assessee had sought permission for afarm house which would also mean that such land is an agriculturalland. Besides that, the Tribunal whilst dismissing the appeal hastaken into consideration the guidelines settled by the Apex Court toascertain the nature of the agricultural land. 4. In such circumstances, we find that there is no perversity in thefinding arrived at by the authorities below. The concurrent finding offact arrived at by the authorities below cannot be interfered in thepresent appeal unless there is perversity in such findings. Noperversity in such finding has been pointed out by the learnedCounsel for the appellant. Hence, no case made out for admission ofthe above appeal. Hence, the appeal stands rejected. NH NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. F. M. REIS, J.