1996 (11) TMI 35

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct, was bad in law' ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the absence of correct details being furnished by the assessee regarding the situation of the agricultural property transferred, the Tribunal is justified in,--- (i) holding that the assessee had given complete details about the transfer of agricultural land ? (ii) interfering with the reopening and is not the above finding of having given 'complete details' against facts and unwarranted and the interference uncalled for and wrong ?" In other words, if the assessee had given complete details about the transfer of agricultural lands, at the same time contending that the amount connected with the transfer transaction is not taxable, cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of the Tribunal itself. On going through the three orders for both the assessment years, we find that this court (one of us---myself dictated the judgment) in I. T. R. No. 146 of 1987, CIT v. R. Krishnarajunan [1997] 225 ITR 510, on June 17, 1996, considered the position fully and squarely. It is considered that when the land is sold, the sale proceeds cannot be understood to be revenue but capital, obviously because it cannot be understood as income derived from the land as the land itself is realised when it is sold. The question was also considered yet from another angle with reference to section 2(1)(a) of the Act conveying what is "agricultural income". With regard to the position relating to reopening under section 143(2)(b) of ....