Txa/18/2017 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji v. Shri. Prakash Kittur

Amrut IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOATAX APPEAL NO.18 OF 2017 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, … AppellantPanajiVersusPrakash Kittur…Respondent Ms S Linhares, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri N Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Ms G Kamat, Advocate for the Respondent. PC:- CORAM:G.S. PATEL & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJDATED:20th September 2017 1.This is a companion appeal to Tax Appeal No 16 of 2017which we have today dismissed by a separate order. 2.The facts are broadly similar. The questions raised here relateto land said to have been agricultural land exempted from tax andwhich was sold. The assessee Kittur was a confirming party andserved as a facilitator or mediator in that transaction. The IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order considered this landat Loliem that the Assessing Officer has held to be a capital asset.The Commissioner estimated the income at 12% of the total receipt.The Commissioner held the property to be agricultural. There thenfollowed a discussion on the siting of this land and its distance from municipal limits of Canacona Municipality. This is hardly a questionof law that we could possibly entertain. This has been settled by thedecision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji v Debbie Alemao.[1] 3.The second aspect in relation to this land was that when itwas sold, it was sold as agricultural land. The consideration wastreated as profit on account of sale of agricultural land and exemptedfrom tax. The findings of the Commissioner in this regard wereupheld. The view is not one that can be said to raise any question oflaw. 4.As to the proposed grounds or questions (c) and (d), thesespeak to the question of sufficiency of evidence. We have alreadyfound in the companion matter that the Commissioner’s view wasupheld by the bench and is not unreasonable. The Bench also foundthat as a matter of fact the original assessee passed away and not allrecords were readily available to the present Respondent, his son.The Commissioner and the bench correctly made allowance for thisaspect. 5.For these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal either. It isalso dismissed. No costs. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI J. G. S. PATEL J. 1( 2011) 196 Taxman 230 ( Bom).