bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4 OF 2006 TAX APPEAL NO.4 OF 2006 TAX APPEAL NO.4 OF 2006 Shantilal M.Kothari ..Appellant Vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 15TH DECEMBER, 2008 : 15TH DECEMBER, 2008 : 15TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appeared for the Respondent though served. The Appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law: I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the transaction for purchase of land entered into by the Appellant was an adventure in the nature of trade and thus the gains arising from the assignment of his right were assessable under the head profits and gains of business or profession ? II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal that the transaction of purchase of land entered into by the Appellant was an adventure in nature of trade is perverse and/or contrary to material on record inasmuch as there was nothing to suggest the transaction that it was on account of business rather the history demonstrated that the Appellant was not a dealer in land ? 2. We have perused the order dated 16th June, :2: 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and also the Assessee’s Computation of Total Income for the Assessment Year 1992-93 showing that the sale of plot was termed as a capital gain of Rs.18,04,325/-. Over and above, in paragraph Nos.13 and 14, the Tribunal has clearly given a finding that it is the case of the Assessee himself in a suit filed by him before the Civil Judge, that he had purchased the plot of land for development and for construction thereon and that he had concrete plans with him with regard to the same. It is unbelievable that the Assessee himself will have an accommodation constructed on a plot of land admeasuring 44000 sq.ft. for his own residential use. Considering this aspect, in the light of the earlier finding for the Assessment year 1992-93, it appears to be a regular business of dealing with the property. 3. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in the above. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)