Case Law Details
Ajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. CIT (Rajasthan High Court)
What is to be considered is that for being granted benefit under sub-section (37) of section 10 of the Act, the land in question should have been put to agricultural use by the assessee for the preceding two years. Even if we accept the contention of the appellant that he was in possession of the land for two years from 27-7-2006 to 7-10-2008, then too, from the records it is not at all clear that for both the years the appellant was carrying out agricultural activity in the land in question. The Tribunal has further examined the issue and held that if at all there was any agricultural activity being carried on by the appellant in the previous two years, some accounts with regard to expenditure made by the appellant for sowing the crops and also revenue generated by selling the agricultural produce would have been submitted by the assessee, which has not been done by him. The same is also a strong ground for not accepting that the appellant was carrying on agricultural activity on the plot in question.
Clear findings of fact have been recorded by all the three authorities, which in our view, do not require to be interfered with by this Court in appeal. As such, we are of the view that since the finding of fact has been given by all the authorities that the appellant was not carrying on any agricultural activity in the plot in question in preceding two years prior to 7-10-2008, the appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of section 10(37) of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the department and assessee’s C.O. has been dismissed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
