2018 (7) TMI 753
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said Act and the assessment was completed on 29.12.2009. Later, notice under Section 142(1) read with Section 129 of the said Act was issued on 16.2.2015. 3. It appears that during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-2008, the respondent assessee had sold agricultural land at Pudupakkam village and Santhankuppam village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District for Rs. 14,90,00,000/- and claimed exemption on the ground that the land being agricultural land, the same did not attract capital gains. 4. After considering submissions of the respondent assessee and/or his representative, the Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption of Rs. 14,38,86,650/- claimed by the respondent assessee on the ground that the agricultural land had not been sold for agricultural purpose. The Assessing Officer took note of the fact that the respondent assessee had not been deriving any income from agricultural operations and incurring only losses. 5. Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, the appeal being I.T.A.No.173/2015-16/CIT(A)-15, which was dismissed by an order dated 29.8.2017 upholding the disallowance of exemption ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r un-signing of Inspector's Report is not within the control of the assessee. The fact that such Report was available in the assessment records and the same has also been referred to in the scrutiny assessment proceedings completed on 29.12.2009 clearly shows that the agricultural operations were also carried on the said land and is a valid document. Further, the assessee's case as to whether the running of Nursery was agricultural or not had been considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras and running of the Nursery has been held to be agricultural operation. A perusal of the Assessment Order also shows that the AO has recognized that the assessee was running a Nursery under the name and style of Soundariya Nursery. A perusal of the provisions of Sec.2(1A) as also Sec.2(14)(iii) shows that agricultural land is not liable to be treated as a capital asset subject to the condition that the land is situated in an area where the Municipality has a population of less than 10,000 or at a distance of more than 8 Kms from Municipality or cantonment which has a population of more than 10 lakhs. 7. In the present case, admittedly, the land sold by the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....effect and in substance, held that the land in question did not come within any of the exceptions to the definition of agricultural land enumerated in Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 10. The short question before us is whether this appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned Tribunal should be entertained? 11. Section 260A of the Act provides as follows: "Section 260A. Appeal to High Court. (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal before the date of establishment of the National Tax Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or an Assessee aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this sub-section shall be- (a) filed within one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Assessee or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. (b) [***]; (c) in the form of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n set of questions of law were mere questions of law or substantial questions of law. 15. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (supra) are set out herein below : "21. The phrase substantial question of law , as occurring in the amended Section 100 CPC is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying question of law , means of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of substantial question of law by suffixing the words of general importance as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta [(1927-28) 55 IA 235 : AIR 1928 PC 172] the phrase substantial question of law as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since omit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l 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 the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law involving in the case there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case or not, the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis. (See Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179] .) 24.The principles relating to Section 100 CPC releva....