[2013] 30 taxmann.com 334 (Kerala)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Smt. Asha George
v.
Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur*
K.M. JOSEPH AND C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
IT APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2012†
JANUARY 16, 2013
I. Section 54B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Transfer of
land used for agricultural purposes - Conditions precedent - Assessment
year 2005-06 - During assessment, assessee claimed exemption under
section 54B in respect of land sold
, although it was not claimed in return - Assessing Officer denied exemption on ground that land was not used for agricultural purposes - Photographs produced by assessee could not prove that they related to property in question - Whether exemption under section 54B was available, where assessee was unable to establish, with all evidence produced, that land was used for agricultural purposes during two years prior to date of transfer - Held, no [Para 10] [In favour of revenue]
, although it was not claimed in return - Assessing Officer denied exemption on ground that land was not used for agricultural purposes - Photographs produced by assessee could not prove that they related to property in question - Whether exemption under section 54B was available, where assessee was unable to establish, with all evidence produced, that land was used for agricultural purposes during two years prior to date of transfer - Held, no [Para 10] [In favour of revenue]
II. Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Exemption
of in case of investment in residential house - Land appurtenant -
Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee sold land and claimed exemption under
section 54F in return, by investing in farm house with adjoining land -
Assessing Officer restricted exemption to lower amount as assessee
produced no material to show that entire area purchased along with farm
house was land appurtenant to it - Whether, value of entire land
purchased could be considered for exemption under section 54F - Held, no
[Para 12] [In favour of revenue]
FACTS
Facts
• The assessee sold land for Rs. 11 lakhs and claimed exemption under
section 54F in the return, by purchasing a farm house with 1.92 acres
of land with the entire sale proceeds.
• During assessment, the assessee contended that she was entitled to
exemption under section 54B, which was denied by the Assessing Officer
on ground that the land which was sold was not used for agricultural
purposes for a period of two years prior to the date of transfer.
• The Assessing Officer allowed only Rs. 2 lakhs as the cost of
acquisition of the land over and above Rs. 1 lakh as value of super
structure under section 54F.
Arguments of assessee
• The photographs of land sold showing coconut trees, receipt for
water cess, certificate from agricultural officer and a receipt from
Electricity Board showing the meter connection to be an agricultural
one, prove that the land which was sold was used for agricultural
purpose as required under section 54B.
• So far as exemption under section 54F was concerned, the farm that
was purchased was connected with the enjoyment of the house being an
integral part and, therefore, the value of the entire land should have
been considered.
Arguments of revenue
• Neither the assessee nor her family members had shown any
agricultural income in their return, indicating that the property sold
was not used for agricultural purposes.
• The photographs were not produced before the Assessing Officer and
there was no material to indicate that the photographs related to the
property in question.
Issues involved
• Whether the land was actually being used for agricultural purpose
during the two years prior to the date of transfer and, thus, the
exemption under section 54B was available?
• Whether the entire area purchased along with farm house should have
been considered as land appurtenant to residential building and, hence,
value of entire land could be considered in arriving at the value of
residential building for calculating exemption under section 54F?
HELD
Land sold was not used for agricultural purposes
• The assessee had claimed in the return,
exemption on the basis of section 54F. But, during the assessment
proceedings, the assessee relied on section 54B. In other words,
initially the appellant even did not have a case that the land sold was
used for agricultural purposes.
• The tax receipt produced by the assessee
did not throw light on the nature of the property. It did not say that
the tax was levied in respect of agricultural property.
• It may also be true that unless there is a
surplus, a person may not show agricultural income in the return. But,
it is equally true that had the agricultural income been declared in the
return, it would have been a circumstance to assist the authorities to
conclude that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of section 54B.
• It is true that for the applicability of
section 54B, what the purchaser of the land does with it, may not be
relevant. If he puts a land falling under section 54B of the Act for a
non-agricultural use, that cannot be a circumstance to deprive the
previous owner of his right to claim under section 54B of the Act.
Equally, the emphasis under section 54B is the use to which the land is
put (In fact, the Tribunal has correctly held that it is the user of the
land and not the nature of the land that is relevant).
• In other words, it is not necessary that
the land which is transferred, must be an agricultural land as such. The
fact that the land is located in an urban area, cannot by itself be
relevant to deny the benefit under section 54B. What is essential is
that it must be used for agricultural purposes for a period of two years
prior to the date of the transfer. [Para 8]
• The sheet-anchor of the assessee case was projected to be the photographs showing coconut trees and the water tank. It
is not clear as to why the assessee did not choose to produce the
photographs before the Assessing Officer when the matter was pending for
a long time.
• The assessee herself is to be blamed for
not having staked a claim before the Assessing Officer based on the
photographs. Nothing, stood in the way of the assessee producing the
photographs before the Assessing Officer. The property in the hands of
the purchaser was used for putting up an apartment complex. The
Assessing Officer cannot be blamed for not conducting any inspection.
• At least, the assessee has not provided
sufficient materials with reference to which the Court could have formed
an opinion that the nature of the property continued to be such that
the officer could have conducted an inspection. Also, the photographs could be relied on only if it was established that it related to the property.
• The other material produced by the
assessee before the Assessing Officer appeared to be a self-defeating
act, as the receipt of the electric connection, though shown to be for
agricultural one, related to the meter which revealed that the opening
and closing reading was the same. No charges were seen levied other than
the fixed charges. Therefore, the said document, far from establishing
the assessee's case, militates against the case set up by the assessee.
The requirement of section 54B is that the assessee must establish that
the land was being used for agricultural purpose for a period of two
years prior to the date of transfer. Certainly, this material did not in
any way establish the said facts.
• The certificate by the village officer
showed that the land is 'Nilam' (paddy land). It is incongruous that the
claim that the land being put to agricultural use, should be built up
on the basis of there being sixty four coconut trees and arecanut trees,
when even going by the photographs, the land was claimed to be 'Nilam'.
The crucial question is whether the land was actually being used for
agricultural purpose during the two years prior to the date of the
transfer. A finding of fact, at any rate, based on our re-appreciating
the material which was considered by the Tribunal, the final fact
finding authority, cannot be overturned. [Para 9]
• As far as the certificate issued by the
Agricultural Officer, is concerned, it was seen issued in the year 2012.
On what basis the officer could have given such a certificate is not
clear as the land was already converted for the construction of an
apartment complex.
• It is no doubt true that no substantial
question of law about the finding being perverse was raised. Therefore
the case under section 54B is repelled. [Para 10]
Value of entire land apartment to building purchased cannot be considered for exemption under section 54F
• Section 54F is intended to encourage
construction of or acquisition of residential house with the aid of the
proceeds from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, which is not a
residential house. The provision contemplates computing the cost of the
residential building, but the value of the plot on which the farm house
stands and the land appurtenant could also be considered. The Tribunal
had found that the assessee had not produced material to show that the
entire area of 1.92 acres should be considered as land appurtenant to
it. Therefore, the Tribunal made an estimation and directed that the
value of the plot on which the farm house was located and the land
appurtenant be fixed as 2 lakhs. The contention of the assessee that the
value of the entire land must be considered in arriving at the value of
the residential building cannot be accepted. It is not open to the
assessee to invoke section 54B in regard to the rest of the land
purchased, as the assessee had not been able to satisfy the requirements
of section 54B in regard to the land sold. Therefore, at any rate,
there can be no basis for invoking section 54B for deducting the value
of the land purchased. [Para 12]
CASE REVIEW
CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani [2004] 270 ITR 40/[2003] 133 Taxman 712 (Punj. & Har.) (Para 10) distinguished.
CASES REFERRED TO
CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC) (para 6), CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani [2004] 270 ITR 40/[2003] 133 Taxman 712 (Punj. & Har.) (para 6), CIT v. Janardhan Dass [2008] 299 ITR 210/170 Taxman 113 (All.) (para 6) and CIT v. Lal Singh [2010] 325 ITR 588/195 Taxman 420/8 taxmann.com 114 (Punj. & Har.) (para 6).
G. Sarangam, V.B. Unniraj, Smt. R.S. Geetha and Smt. P. Anitha for the Appellant. P.K.R. Menon and Jose Joseph for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J. - Appellant returned nil
income for the assessment year 2005- 2006. Acting on information that
the assessee had transacted a property on 05.11.2004, the assessment was
reopened. Appellant had 1/4th share in 1.10 acres of land in Ayyanthole
Village. The same was sold for Rs. 44 lakhs on 14.11.2004. The assessee
received Rs.11 lakhs as her share. In her return, she computed her
capital gain at nil after claiming indexation on cost of acquisition and
cost of improvement and further claiming exemption under Section 54F of
the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the basis of
a property purchased at Koothattukulam, a farm house with 1.92 acres of
land for Rs.11 lakhs on 28.3.2005. During the course of the assessment
proceedings, the appellant took up the contention that she is entitled
to exemption under Section 54B of the Act. The tribunal has affirmed the
findings of the authorities that the appellant is not entitled to the
benefit of Section 54B for the reason that the property at Ayyanthole
Village which she sold was not used for agricultural purposes for a
period of two years prior to the date of the sale as required under
Section 54B of the Act. It is the further finding of the tribunal that
the appellant is entitled only to take Rs.2 lakhs as the cost of
acquisition over and above Rs.1 lakh allowed as value of super-structure
under Section 54F of the Act. It is being aggrieved by the same that
the appellant is before us.
2. The following substantial questions of law have been raised in the Appeal Memorandum:
"(i) Whether the sale proceeds of the land at Ayyanthole were within the scope of Section 54B of the Income Tax Act ?
(ii) Whether the cost of improvement of the land that was sold should have been determined at Rs.3,50,000/= ?
(iii) Whether the subsequent purchase of
land (at Koothattukulam) in which a farm house is situated satisfied the
requirements of Section 54F and/or Section 54B and thus there was no
liability to pay any long term capital gains tax on the sale of land at
Ayyanthole, in the Assessment Year 2005-06 ?".
3. We heard Shri G. Sarangan, learned
senior counsel for the appellant and also Shri Jose Joseph, learned
counsel appearing for the Department.
4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant
would submit that the approach of the tribunal in denying the benefit
of the exemption under Section 54B is unsupportable. There were
materials before the authorities indicating that the land at Ayyanthole
was indeed being put to agricultural use for a period of two years. In
this regard, he drew our attention to certain photographs showing
coconut trees. He also relied on the receipt for the water cess. Further
more, he drew support from the certificate of the village officer. We
find that the certificate from the agricultural officer is also referred
to in the order of the tribunal. A copy of the certificate from the
agricultural officer was made available to us by the appellant. It is
further pointed out that a receipt was produced from the Electricity
Board and it was contended that the connection was an agricultural one.
He would point out further that the tribunal and the authorities have
taken into consideration irrelevant facts. In this regard, he would
point out that the fact that the purchaser of the property at Ayyanthole
had converted the land and an apartment complex was set up, should not
have weighed with the authority in denying the benefit under Section 54B
of the Act. The assessing officer also finds that it cannot stand to
reason that an agricultural property lying right under the nose of the
District Administration could be converted into a commercial complex
without any issues. According to the appellant, what is relevant is the
use to which the land was put as provided. Still further more, he would
submit that the fact that the appellant had not originally set up the
claim under Section 54B could not disentitle her from claiming the
benefit under Section 54B, if it is otherwise available. It is further
contended that the authorities have been influenced by the fact that no
agricultural income from the property at Ayyanthole was returned. The
finding of the authorities is that neither the appellant, nor her family
members have shown any agricultural income in their returns. It is
stated that her father was stated to be a business man dealing in supply
of meat to the zoo and the mother, a Nurse by profession who earns
income from salary and, therefore, they ought to have disclosed
agricultural income, if there was any, in their returns.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
Revenue would contend that the findings of the tribunal are
unexceptionable. No substantial question of law has been made out. He
would point out that a perusal of the substantial questions of law would
show that there is no substantial question of law raised that the
findings rendered are perverse so as to warrant interference under
Section 260A of the Act. He would further contend that no reliance can
be placed on the photographs. The photographs were not even produced
before the assessing officer. The order of the assessing officer is
dated 10.12.2009 and it is only before the appellate authority that some
photographs were produced. There is no material to indicate as to
whether the photographs related to the property in question. He would
also reiterate that the conduct of the appellant in not raising the
claim under Section 54B of the Act may be borne in mind and the claim
under Section 54B of the Act is only raised as an after-thought.
6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant sought to buttress his contentions with the aid of the following case law:
(i) The Apex Court in CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 held as follows:
" 'Agriculture' in its primary sense denotes the cultivation of the
field and is restricted to cultivation of the land in the strict sense
of the term, meaning thereby tilling of the land, sowing of the seeds,
planting and similar operations on the land. These are basic operations
and require the expenditure of human skill and labour upon the land
itself.
Those operations which the agriculturist has to resort to and which are
absolutely necessary for the purpose of effectively raising produce from
the land, operations which are to be performed after the produce
sprouts from the land, e.g., weeding, digging the soil around the
growth, removal of undesirable undergrowth, and all operations which
foster the growth and preservation of the same not only from insects and
pests but also from depredation from outside, tending, pruning,
cutting, harvesting and rendering the produce fit for the market, would
all be agricultural operations when taken in conjunction with the basic
operations. The human labour and skill spent in the performance of these
subsequent operations cannot be said to have been spent on the land
itself.
The mere performance of these subsequent operations on the products of
the land, where such products have not been raised on the land by the
performance of the basic operations, would not be enough to characterize
them as agricultural operations; in order to invest them with the
character of agricultural operations, these subsequent operations must
necessarily be in conjunction with and in continuation of the basic
operations which are the effective cause of the products being raised
from the land. The subsequent operations divorced from the basic
operations cannot constitute by themselves agricultural operations.
Only if this integrated activity which constitutes agriculture is
undertaken and performed in regard to any land, can that land be said to
have been used for "agricultural purposes" and the income derived
therefrom be said to be "agricultural income" derived from the land by
agriculture, under Section 2(I) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922."
(ii) Next, he would rely on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani [2004] 270 ITR 40/[2003] 133 Taxman 712. Therein, the Court held as follows, inter alia:
"The exemption is available to the seller of "a capital asset being
land". It does not restrict the benefit to agricultural land only.
However, the land against which the benefit is sought must have been
used by the assessee or his parent for agricultural purposes in the two
years immediately preceding the date of sale. From the facts stated by
the Assessing Officer himself, it is evident that this condition is
clearly fulfilled. It has been observed that poplar plantation stood on
this land till 1988-89. It has also been stated that fodder grass and
vegetables were grown in the kharif season. The khasra girdwari produced
by the assessee also shows that agricultural operations on this land
were being carried on by the assessee and other co-owners till its sale.
Even the records of the Income-tax Department also show that the
assessee had declared agricultural income from this land in her returns
of the preceding two years.
In the light of this factual position, there is no merit in the
contention of Shri Sawhney that no agricultural operations had been
carried on in this land in the preceding two years and that the
agricultural income shown in the returns by the assessee was not
genuine. At any rate, the findings of the Tribunal that there was
material on record to show that the land had been used for agricultural
purposes is based on cogent and relevant material. The Revenue record
supports the claim. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the
conditions laid down for claiming relief under Section 54B of the Act
stood satisfied. Once it is so, the other contentions about the land
being located in the commercial area or the land having been partially
utilised for non-agricultural purposes or that the vendees have also
purchased it for non-agricultural purposes, are totally irrelevant
considerations for the purposes of application of Section 54B of the
Act." (Emphasis supplied)
(iii) Still further, the learned senior counsel sought to draw support from the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Janardhan Dass [2008]
299 ITR 210/170 Taxman 113 essentially for the proposition that Section
54B is a beneficial provision for an assessee who is otherwise liable
to pay tax under the head "capital gains".
(iv) Lastly, support is sought from the Judgment of the of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Lal Singh [2010] 325 ITR 588/195 Taxman 420/8 taxmann.com
114. Therein, the tribunal dealing with a case where the question arose
whether the land was beyond eight kilo metres from the Municipal limit,
took the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly relied on the
report of the Tahsildar, and that too, on the application of the
assessing officer himself and thereafter the Court also proceeded to
note that the finding rendered was a pure finding of fact which was not
perverse, illegal or contrary to the evidence on record.
7. Learned senior counsel for the appellant
would also submit that the contention of the Revenue that no
substantial question of law was raised regarding the finding of the
tribunal being perverse, may not hold good in the light of the powers
available to the Court under Section 260A of the Act. He would point out
that it is for the Court to formulate the substantial question of law.
In fact, the proviso indicates that a substantial question of law which
was not formulated could still be decided upon if it arose. Learned
senior counsel for the appellant would also submit that as far as the
land at Koothattukulam along with the farm house admeasuring 1 acre 92
cents is concerned, the finding of the tribunal estimating and limiting
the value of the plot on which the farm house is located and the value
of the land appurtenant thereto and thus the estimating the value of the
plot and the land at Rs.2 lakhs and allowing the same in addition to
the value of the super structure, may not be the correct view. He would
submit that the farm is connected with the enjoyment of the house being
an integral part and, therefore, the value of the entire land should
have been considered.
8. We notice from the order of assessment
that the appellant's late father had applied for sanction for
construction of a compound wall before the Thrissur Urban Development
Authority. The appellant had claimed in the return, exemption on the
basis of Section 54F of the Act. But, during the assessment proceedings,
the appellant relied on Section 54B of the Act. In other words,
initially the appellant even did not have a case that the land at
Ayyanthole was used for agricultural purposes. A perusal of the order of
assessment would show that the appellant had produced tax receipt of
property and a receipt from the KSEB. The assessing officer has found
that no power charge is payable on the basis of the receipt. It is true
that the connection was an agricultural one. But, the officer notes that
the opening and closing meter reading, as per the receipt, is the same.
It is also found that tax receipt does not throw light on the nature of
the property. It does not say that the tax is levied in respect of
agricultural property. No doubt, the learned senior counsel for the
appellant may be right in complaining that the assessing officer should
not have relied on the circumstance that the subsequent purchaser
converted the property into an apartment complex. Going by the decisions
cited by the appellant, it may also be true that unless there is a
surplus, a person may not show agricultural income in the return. But,
it is equally true that had the agricultural income been declared in the
return, it would have been a circumstance to assist the authorities to
conclude that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 54B of
the Act. It is true that for the applicability of Section 54B, what the
purchaser of the land does with it, may not be relevant. If he puts a
land falling under Section 54B of the Act for a non-agricultural use,
that cannot be a circumstance to deprive the previous owner of his right
to claim under Section 54B of the Act. Equally, the emphasis under
Section 54B is the use to which the land is put (In fact, the tribunal
has correctly held that it is the user of the land and not the nature of
the land that is relevant). In other words, it is not necessary that
the land which is transferred, must be an agricultural land as such. The
fact that the land is located in an urban area, cannot by itself be
relevant to deny the benefit under Section 54B. What is essential is
that it must be used for agricultural purposes for a period of two years
prior to the date of the transfer.
9. Even while we accept the complaint of
the appellant that certain irrelevant aspects were also considered by
the tribunal and the officers, we are inclined to pose the question as
to what would be the result if those irrelevant aspects are eschewed
from consideration. In other words, what are the other materials which
the appellant can persuade us to rely on to hold that the land was put
to agricultural use ? We, thought the sheet-anchor of the appellant's
case was projected to be the photographs showing coconut trees and the
water tank. But there, we must notice certain circumstances. We notice
that even in the Appeal Memorandum, the appellant would say that the
photographs were taken in April, 2004 and the property was sold on
14.11.2004. The appellant filed return on 03.01.2006, where she does not
set up a case under Section 54B of the Act. The assessment order was
passed on 10.12.2009. We are at a loss as to why the appellant did not
choose to produce the photographs before the assessing officer when the
matter was pending for such a long time and admittedly according to the
appellant, the photographs were taken in 2004. At this juncture, it is
also necessary for us to deal with the argument of the learned senior
counsel for the appellant that the appellant has done all she could do
and it was incumbent on the part of the officer to conduct a local
inspection and conduct an enquiry. In this regard, if at all, we must
blame the appellant herself for not having staked a claim based on the
photographs. Nothing, as we see, stood in the way of the appellant
producing the photographs before him. We must also not forget that the
property in the hands of the purchaser was used for putting up an
apartment complex. Therefore, we cannot certainly blame the officer for
not conducting any inspection. At least, the appellant has not posted us
with sufficient materials with reference to which we could have formed
an opinion that the nature of the property continued to be such that the
officer could have conducted an inspection. The photographs were, no
doubt, produced before the appellate authority. But, as rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for the Revenue, the photographs, we must
remind ourselves, could be relied on only if it is established that it
related to the property. Therefore, it may not be safe for us to
overturn a finding of fact in a proceeding under Section 260A of the Act
which is premised on a substantial question of law being made out. The
other material produced by the appellant before the assessing officer
appear to be a self-defeating act, as the receipt of the electric
connection, though shown to be for agricultural one, related to the
meter which reveals that the opening and closing reading is the same. No
charges were seen levied other than the fixed charges. Therefore, the
said document, far from establishing the appellant's case, militates
against the case set up by the appellant. We must remind ourselves that
the requirement of Section 54B of the Act is that the assessee must
establish that the land was being used for agricultural purpose for a
period of two years prior to the date of the transfer. Certainly, this
material does not in any way establish the said facts. Then, there is
the certificate by the village officer showing that the land is "Nilam"
(paddy land). Learned counsel for the Revenue points out that it is
incongruous that the claim that the land being put to agricultural use,
should be built up on the basis of there being sixtyfour coconut trees
and arecanut trees, when even going by the photographs, the land is
claimed to be "Nilam". The crucial question is whether the land was
actually being used for agricultural purpose during the two years prior
to the date of the transfer. We do not think that we can overturn a
finding of fact, at any rate, based on our re-appreciating the material
which was considered by the tribunal which is the final fact finding
authority.
10. As far as the certificate issued by the
Agricultural Officer, a copy of which was handed over to us is
concerned, we notice that it is seen issued in the year 2012. We do not
know on what basis the officer could have given such a certificate.
Admittedly, the land was already converted for the construction of an
apartment complex. We must also remind ourselves that unlike the
decision in the Punjab and Haryana High Court (supra), where one of the
materials was the inclusion of agricultural income in the return, there
is no such return filed. At any rate, we cannot on a re- appreciation of
all these materials, overturn the findings of facts entered by the
tribunal. Unless the finding of fact is perverse or contrary to the
weight of the evidence, the law does not permit us to re-appreciate the
evidence and interfere. It is no doubt true that no substantial question
of law about the finding be perverse is raised. We do not doubt our
power to frame an additional substantial question of law, provided one
such question arose. But, we are not inclined to think that the finding
of fact rendered under Section 54B is perverse. We therefore repel the
case under Section 54B of the Act.
11. Next, it is contended that the officer
should have granted, at any rate, the benefit of exemption under Section
54F of the Act in regard to the value of the property, namely the
officer should have deducted the entire Rs.11 lakhs paid for purchasing 1
acre 92 cents with the farm house.
12. Section 54F is intended to encourage
construction of or acquisition of residential house with the aid of the
proceeds from the transfer of any long term capital asset, which is not a
residencial house. The provision contemplates computing the cost of the
residential building, but the value of the plot on which the farm house
stands and the land appurtenant could also be considered. The tribunal
has categorically found that the appellant has not produced material to
show that the entire area of 1.92 acres should be considered as land
appurtenant to it. It is in such circumstances, the tribunal made an
estimation and directed that the value of the plot on which the farm
house is located and the land appurtenant be fixed as Rs.2 lakhs. We are
unable to accept the contention of the appellant that the value of the
entire land must be considered in arriving at the value of the
residential building. We find no illegality committed by the tribunal.
It is not open to the appellant to invoke Section 54B of the Act in
regard to the rest of the land at Koothattukulam. This is for the reason
that the appellant has not been able to satisfy the requirements of
Section 54B as already noted by us in regard to the land at Ayyanthole.
Therefore, at any rate, there can be no basis for invoking Section 54B
of the Act for deducting the value of the land purchased at
Koothattukulam. Therefore, we reject the contention of the appellant.
Accordingly, we answer the substantial question of law Nos. 1 and 3
against the appellant.
13. No arguments were addressed before us
in regard to the question of law No.2. We see no merit in this Appeal
and the Appeal will stand dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment