AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 616
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Krishnankaranai Village, Chengalpet Taluk, for a consideration of Rs. 9,76,76,000/-, vide Document No.13202/2011, which was registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Tiruporur. It is stated that as per the guidelines of the sub-registration office, the market value of the property was estimated at Rs. 11,05,38,000/-. 4.The assessee claimed that the entire sale consideration was exempt under Section 2 (14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the lands sold were agricultural lands. The assessee claimed that the lands in question not being capital asset, no capital gains tax was payable on such sale. 5.In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had acquired the lands in between the years 1985 to 1988, but the assessee had not returned any agricultural income from the Assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. The Assessing Officer, thus, presumed that the assessee was not carrying on any agricultural activity in the land and concluded that the lands were not agricultural lands. 6.In arriving at the conclusion that the lands sold were not agricultural lands, the Assessing Officer took note of the phenomenal rise in the value of the lan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;s case (supra) was rendered in the context of the definition of 'urban land' in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'the ULCAR Act'). Under the definition of 'urban land' in the ULCAR Act, urban land included any land situated within the limits of an urban agglomeration as specified, but did not include any such land which was mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. However, for the purpose of the aforesaid clause, the expression 'agriculture' included horticulture, but did not include raising of crops, dairy farming, poultry farming, breeding of live-stock and such cultivation, or the growing of such plant as might be prescribed. In the context of the ULCAR Act, the Supreme Court found that operating of a 'Bhatta' could not be an agricultural purpose. Even though the land had been entered in the revenue records as agriculture land, such land would vest in the State. 13.Capital Asset has specifically been defined in Section 2 (14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to exclude agricultural land. The definition is extracted hereinbelow for convenience: "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. There may be factors both for and against a particular point of view. The Court has to answer the question on a consideration of all of them a process of evaluation where inference has to be drawn on a cumulative consideration of all the relevant facts. 16.In the instant case, the Appellate Tribunal has concurred with the factual finding arrived at by the CIT (A) and affirmed the decision of the CIT (A). The decision is based on some materials. It cannot be said that the decision is perverse. It is not for this Court to re-analyse the evidence or decide whether the evidence on record was sufficient to justify the finding. 17.Right of appeal is not automatic. Right of appeal is conferred by Statute. If the right of appeal conferred by the Statute is limited to cases where there is a substantial question of law, this Court cannot sit in appeal over factual findings by re-weighing and re-analysing the evidence and materials on record. It would be relevant to refer to Section 260-A of the said Act, which provides as hereunder: A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of appeals under this section. 18.What constitutes a substantial question of law has extensively been discussed and explained by the Supreme Court in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. vs Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. [AIR 1962 SC 1314], where the Supreme Court approved the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao vs Noony Veeraju And Ors reported in AIR 1951 Mad 969. 19.It is now well settled that the principles for determination of existence of substantial question of law as laid down in Sir Chunilal V.Mehta's case (supra) in the context of second appeals under the Civil Procedure Code would apply to appeals under Section 260 A of the Income-Tax Act. Reference may, in this context, be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.Janardhana Rao Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2005) 273 ITR 50 (SC). 20.The judgment of the Supreme Court inter alia in Sir Chunilal V.Mehta's case (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in Hero Vinoth Vs. Seshammal [(2006) 5 SCC 545] (para 24), where the Supreme Court summarized the principles and tests for deciding whether the questions involved in the appeal w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SCR pp. 557-58) "The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law." 22. In Dy. Commr. v. Rama Krishna Narain [1954 SCR 506 : AIR 1953 SC 521] also it was held that a question of law of importance to the parties was a substantial question of law entitling the appellant to a certificate under (the then) Section 100 CPC. 23. To be substantial a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law . (iii) The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to decision based on no evidence, it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding." 21.The questions raised in this appeal do not meet the tests laid down by the Supreme Court for holding that the questions are substantial questions of law. We are constrained to hold that there is no question of law, let alone any substantial question of law, involved in this appeal. 22.This Tax Case appeal is, thus, not entertained and the same is dismissed. No costs. T.C. (A) No.429 of 2017 02.08.2017 capital asset means ....