2018 (1) TMI 277

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the Tribunal was right in not considering the fact that the Assessee did not produce any evidence to substantiate the fact that he had performed agricultural operations on the said land while claiming exemption of agricultural income ? ii.Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad, especially when the assessee has purchased the land for Rs. 1.97 crores and sold the same within 2 years for Rs. 5.31 crores which clearly indicates that the intention of the Assessee was not to carry out any agricultural operations and that the Assessee had also not produced any evidence relating to input costs on the land like manure, seed costs, labour costs details, regarding sale proceeds of the produce in any of the assessment years which would clea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....im of exemption of the profit on sale was not accepted by the Assessing Officer for the reason that the assessee had not adduced any evidence for carrying out agricultural activities in the said land and the income was only Rs. 65,300/- for such a huge extent of land for the Assessment Year 2010-11. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had purchased the land on 11.09.2007 for Rs. 1,97,61,000/- and within a short span of two years, sold the same for Rs. 5,31,02,160/-, which clearly indicates the intention of the purchaser to buy a land at such huge cost and certainly not to carry out agricultural operations. 4. The correctness of the findings of the Assessing Officer was tested by the CIT (A). Before the Appellate Authori....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The contentions, as advanced before the CIT(A), were reiterated before the Tribunal, by placing reliance on the decision of Smt.Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. CIT (supra) as well as on an order dated 24.03.2016 passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.16/Mds/2015 for the Assessment Year 2011-12, in the case of M.Karthik. The Tribunal made a thorough factual exercise and taking note of the decisions placed on either side, concurred with the factual finding recorded by the CIT (A) with regard to the character of the land. The Tribunal noted that as held in the case of M.Karthik, the question as to whether the land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact and the question has to be ....