High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. D. RM. M. SP. SV. A. Annamalai Chettiar
Section 2(1A)
Asst. Year 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91
R. Jayasimha Babu & S.R. Singharavelu, JJ.
Tax Case Nos. 218 to 220 of 2003
10th December, 2003
Counsel Appeared
Ms. Pushya Sitharaman, for the Applicant
ORDER
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. :
We do not see any question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal requiring our attention. The assessee’s lands have admittedly been treated as agricultural lands in the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee for several years. It is classified as agricultural land. It was used for the purpose of growing crops. All that had happened in these assessment years was that the land was lying fallow. The fact that the land was lying fallow and the fact that the land was located in a locality where development had taken place, it is contended, was sufficient to render the land non-agricultural. Reliance was placed by counsel on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. CIT (1993) 114 CTR (SC) 467 : (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC). That was a case where the owner of the land had contracted to sell the land for non-agricultural purposes to a co-operative society which was to put up a building immediately after the sale. The land was converted for non-agricultural use by the buyer and the construction commenced. The land was sold by valuing it as urban land on which construction was to take place and was not sold for the purpose of agriculture. It was in the context of those facts that the Court held that notwithstanding the classification of the land as agricultural land, having regard to the manner of its disposal, the purpose for which it is disposed and the short period of time within which the land was put to non-agricultural use by the buyer, the land was required to be regarded as non-agricultural land. Even while rendering that decision, the Supreme Court emphasised the fact that as to whether a piece of land is agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact.
The Tribunal here has set out the factual finding given by the CIT(A) which it has accepted and affirmed. It is not necessary to extract that part of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s order clearly sets out all the relevant facts which would go to show that the land is agricultural land. Appeal is dismissed.
[Citation : 273 ITR 404]
