TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was with regard to the treatment to be given to the land owned by the assessee company with the future intention of setting up an industry thereon. The said land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Assessing Officer charged capital gains thereon to the extent of Rs 18,57,932/-. The assessee has throughout maintained that the land in question was land falling within the definition of "agricultural land" given in Section 2 (14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"). It was therefore, contended by the assessee that no capital gains could be charged in respect of the land. 3. The land in question which is situated in Tugalpur, Tehsil of Great....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee on the land in question as no income from that source had been declared. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also noted that the assessee had never intended to carry out any agricultural operations on the land in question. Consequently, he confirmed the finding of the Assessing Officer that the said land was not agricultural land and, therefore, liable to capital gains. 6. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also upheld the view taken by the authorities below. However, while doing so, the Tribunal noted in paragraph 7 of its order that the Award dated 01.04.1992 passed in the acquisition proceedings, is a document which clearly establishes beyond doubt that the land in question was agricultural land. However, the Tribunal did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oth of the assessee as well as of the acquiring authorities, was to use it for industrial purposes. The Tribunal held that it is this intention which had acquired the status of a presumption and even if it be construed as a rebuttable presumption, the assessee had failed to rebut this presumption. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was rejected. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned counsel for the assessee/ appellant submitted that intention to use a particular piece of land for a non-agricultural purpose cannot by itself alter the character of the land. It was submitted by him that what is to be seen is what was the nature and character of the land on the date the same was acquired. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the appellant. She submitted that in all those cases although the intention was to use the land for non-agricultural purposes, but nothing had been done till the date of acquisition for altering the manner in which the land had hitherto been used i.e., for agricultural purposes. She submitted that in the present case although it is true that the land, when purchased by the assessee, was agricultural land, the assessee did not carry out any agricultural operations thereon. Thus, according to her, the nature of the land stood altered by this fact. This, according to her, was a distinguishable factor between the present case and the three decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee. She also placed reliance on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e transaction was or was not an adventure in the nature of trade, the Court may arrive at a different conclusion considering the attendant facts and circumstances of each case. The presumption, in any case, was rebuttable. 9. Having considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the assessee's contentions deserve to be upheld and the findings returned by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to be reversed. We are conscious that we are not merely reversing a finding of fact, what we are intending to do is to point out that the Tribunal's finding of fact is contrary to its own record and, therefore, is in the realm of perversity. This is so because the Tribunal clearly held that at th....