COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. UNNIKRISHNAN K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following are the two questions expecting our answer with regard to the assessment proceedings for 1984-85 and 1985-86 :

(2.) THE Income-tax Officer under the above provision after the proceedings of assessment were completed under Section 143(1) of the Act.

(3.) IN the process of reasoning the two appellate authorities on the first count relating to the arising out of capital gains relied on the decision of this court in CIT v. T.K. Sarala Devi [1987] 167 ITR 136, and on the second count with regard to the reopening under Section 143(2)(b) of the Act relied upon the decision of the Tribunal itself. On going through the three orders for both the assessment years, we find that this court (one of us-myself dictated the judgment) in I. T. R. No. 146 of 1987, CIT v. R. Krishnarajunan [1997] 225 ITR 510, on June 17, 1996, considered the position fully and squarely. It is considered that when the land is sold, the sale proceeds cannot be understood to be revenue but capital, obviously because it cannot be understood as income derived from the land as the land itself is realised when it is sold. The question was also considered yet from another angle with reference to Section 2(1)(a) of the Act conveying what is "agricultural income".