TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 666
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal was justified in law in holding that total sum of ₹ 1,80,000 shown by the appellant as agricultural income was not entitled to exempt as agricultural income because the assessee himself has not carried out agricultural operation ? 2. Heard Shri P.M. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. The question relates to asst. yr. 1995-96. In short, the question that arises for consideration is : Whether a sum of ₹ 1,80,000 can be said to be an income from agriculture in the hands of assessee so as to allow him to seek exemption from payment of Income Tax. The ITO (AO) held against the assessee whereas, CIT(A) held in his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cultural operations on this land. From the lease deed, a copy of which is placed at pp. 4 and 5 of the compilation, we find that lease deed is undated which raises suspicion whether this lease deed is genuine or not. It is also very surprising that assessee could generate agricultural income of ₹ 1,80,000 on the piece of agricultural land which was taken on lease only for ₹ 22,000. We also find that CIT(A) wrongly calculated the figure of expenditure as found by AO on the basis of statistics supplied by Director, Research, JNU at ₹ 15,000 whereas such expenditure, if these figures are applied should have been ₹ 68,000 approximately. Learned CIT(A) has given unnecessarily weightage to the fact that assessee's fath....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appeal. 5. In our considered opinion and as rightly urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent on the strength of Section 260A(4) of the Act, the appeal really does not involve substantial question of law and what is framed does not really make out any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260A ibid. This Court has jurisdiction to examine even this question at the time of final hearing of the appeal notwithstanding the admission of appeal and framing the question behind the back of respondent at the time of admission. 6. Mere perusal of aforequoted para 7 of the Tribunal order which dealt with the question framed herein would show that it is essentially an issue of fact. Secondly, the Tribunal did go into the ....