M/s. S.P. Mani and Mohan Diary, Erode V. ACIT, Erode

CO 116/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4257 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N C RAVIKRISHNAN ADV
• Assessee Lawyers: SUPRIYA PAL IRS
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Revenue expenditure; Capital Gains

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I .T.A. NO.1935/MDS/2016 & C.O. NO.116/MDS/2016 (IN ITA NO.1935/MDS/2016) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ERODE 638 001. VS. S.P. MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY, 84, JEEVANANTHAM STREET, KOLLAMPALAYAM, ERODE 638 002. [PAN AAKFS 5133J] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT/ CROSS OBJECTOR) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. SUPRIYA PAL, IRS, JCIT. $% ! ' # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. N.C. RAVIKRISHNAN, ADV & ' '( /DATE OF HEARING : 21-09-2016 )* ' '( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-09-2016 ! / O R D E R PER SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE ARE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CO-OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE, BOTH DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 28.03 .2016 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-3, COIMBATORE. REVENUE IN ITS ITA NO.1935/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: APPEAL HAS TAKEN ALTOGETHER SIX GROUNDS OF WHICH G ROUND NOS. 1 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE NEEDING NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICAT ION. 2. VIDE ITS GROUND NO.2, THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED AN ADDITION OF @9,50,000/- CONSIDERED BY THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER HAS CAPITAL OUTGO TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING. 3. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, RUNNING A MIL K DAIRY HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING INCOME OF @3,13,38,420/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF @4,02,170/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED A NEW CANTEEN BUILDING. THE COST OF SUCH BUILDING WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS @4,95,181/- IN ITS BOOKS. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HOW A NEW BUILDING COULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A SUM AS L ITTLE AS @4,95,181/-. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD P URCHASED CEMENT FOR @4,06,077/- WHICH WAS INCLUDED BY IT UNDER THE HEAD BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. TOTAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CAM E TO @18,19,310/-. EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THA T THERE WAS NO NEW BUILDING BUT ONLY CANTEEN STAFF ROOM RENOVATION. A S PER ASSESSEE SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS FOR STAFF WELFARE. HOWEVER, LD. AS SESSING OFFICER WAS NOT IMPRESSED. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE DETAILS REQUIRED ITA NO.1935/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: BY HIM, LIKE AREA OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. HE HELD THA T A SUM OF @10,00,000/- OUT OF THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLAIM ED WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CANTEEN BUIL DING AND DISALLOWED @10,00,000/-. HOWEVER, HE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION OF 5% ON SUCH COST DEMARCATED OUT OF THE MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE. THE EFFECTIVE DISALLOWANCE CAME TO @9,50,000/-. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT NO NEW BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED. ACCORDIN G TO IT, THE OLD BUILDING WAS REMODIFIED AND EXPENDITURE ON SUCH MOD IFICATION RIGHTFULLY CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD BUILDING MAINTENA NCE. FURTHER, AS PER ASSESSEE BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLAIMED BY IT INC LUDED CERTAIN EQUIPMENT AS WELL. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS HELD AS UND ER:- 6.2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED REPAIRS AN D MAINTENANCE TO BUILDING AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT FILED THE DETAILS OF AREA CONSTRUCTED. IN FACT , THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTION BUT ONLY REPAIRS AND MODIFICATION OF C ANTEEN AND OTHER AREAS. NO ADDITIONAL AREA IS CONSTRUCTED . THIS IS CLEARLY REVENUE IN NATURE AND THE ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ITA NO.1935/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: 5. NOW BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT RELIEF WAS GIVEN TO THE A SSESSEE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY IT. ASSESSEE, AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAD NOT SHOWN HOW SUCH HUGE AMOUNT OF BUILDING MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE WAS JUSTIFIED. SUBMISSION W AS THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE DI SALLOWANCE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS. 6. PER CONTRA, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT THERE WAS NO NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTED DURING THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IT WAS A FIGMENT OF THE IMAGINATION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER L D. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PER USED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT THERE WAS NO NEW CANTEEN BUILDING CONSTRUCTED BUT ONLY RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING. HOWEVER, AS PER LD. ASSESSING OF FICER ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED A NEW CANTEEN BUILDING. BEFORE LD. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT BUIL DING MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE OF @18,19,310/- CLAIMED BY IT INCLUDED EQUIPMENT. IN OUR OPINION, THE MATTER REQUIRES A FRESH LOOK BY THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.1935/MDS/2016 :- 5 -: THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO VERIFY WHETHER THE RE WAS NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND WHETHER THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE INCLUDED COST OF ANY EQUIPMENT WHICH WAS TO BE CAPI TALIZED. WE, THEREFORE SETASIDE THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF BUILDING MAINTENANCE EXPENSES BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AS SESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 8. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE STAND ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. VIDE GROUND NO.3, THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE RE VENUE IS THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) D ELETED AN ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS FOR TRA NSFER OF LAND. 10. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR HAD TRANSFERRED FOLLOWING LANDS TO A NEW FORMED COMPANY. DATE PARTICULARS OF LAND AMOUNT 18.01.2012 LAND AVALPOONDURAI (RS NO.1785/2B, 1786/9D) 0.48.5 HEC 220900.00 18.01.2012 LAND AVALPOONDURAI (RS NO.1770/1) 0.69.61 HEC 316200.00 18.01.2012 LAND AVALPOONDURAI (RS NO.1770/1) 0.53 HEC 256400.00 18.01.2012 LAND AVALPOONDURAI (RS NO.1785/2A, 1786/9C) 0.49.5 HEC 225500.00 18.01.2012 LAND AVALPOONDURAI (RS NO.1770/2) 0.95 HEC 431600.00 18.01.2012 LAND AVALPOONDURAI (RS NO.1785/2C, 2D, 4B, 9A, 9B)-1.35.58 HEC 617000.00 18.01.2012 LAND AVALPOONDURAI (RS NO.1785/1, 1786/7, 1786/10) 0.84.67 HEC 385000.00 ITA NO.1935/MDS/2016 :- 6 -: 18.01.2012 LAND AVALPOONDURAI (RS NO.1785/3) 0.40.47 HEC 288000.00 18.01.2012 LAND AVALPOONDURAI (RS NO.1785/3) 0.40.47 HEC-2 288000.00 18.01.2012 LAND AVALPOONDURAI (RS NO.1785/2C, 2D, 4A, 4B, 9A, 9B-1.51 HEC 131200.00 18.01.2012 LAND AVALPOONDURAI (RS NO.1785/1, 1786/7, 1786/10) 2.54.0 HEC 929753.00 18.01.2012 S.P.LOGANATHAN CURRENT A/C. 18.01.2012 R. MOHANASUNDRAM CURRENT A/C. 4089553.00 THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED ASSESSEE TO EXPL AIN WHY SUCH TRANSFER SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SALE AND WHY P ROFITS/CAPITAL GAINS SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE , CONSIDERING MARKET VALUE/FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH LAND. IN RE PLY, ASSESSEE STATED THAT TRANSFERRED LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE AN D THE TRANSFERS WERE EFFECTED AT GUIDELINE VALUE FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT . AS PER ASSESSEE, THE TRANSFER WAS A RESULT OF SUCCESSION OF THE ASS ESSEE BY A COMPANY AND BY VIRTUE OF CLAUSE (XIII) OF SEC. 47 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), THE TRANSA CTION WAS NOT EXIGIBLE TO CAPITAL GAINS. HOWEVER, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER W AS NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ABOVE REPLY. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE WAS NO T DOING ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT MERE ADMISSION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WOULD NOT PRO VE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD PLANNED TO EXPAND THE BUSINESS AND LAND WAS PUR CHASED AND ACCOUNTED BY THE FIRM WITH THIS INTENTION. FURTHER , AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, MAJOR PART OF THE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN JU LY, 2009 AND ITA NO.1935/MDS/2016 :- 7 -: SEPTEMBER, 2009 AND A PORTION WAS PURCHASED IN JULY , 2011. ASSESSEE FIRM HAD NOT DONE ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN TH E SAID LAND. THUS, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE PRIMARY INTENTION TO PURCHASE THE LAND WAS FOR CONSTRUCTION BY THE COMPA NY. AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSEE FIRM HAD TRANSFERRED THE LAND TO A NEW COMPANY AT BOOK VALUE SQUARING UP THE CAPITAL/CURRE NT ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNERS. HE HELD THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PURCHASE COST OF THE LAND AND ITS GUIDELINE VALUE HAD TO BE CONSIDERED AS SH ORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS, CONSIDERING IT AS SALE OF THE LAND FROM THE FIRM TO THE COMPANY; AFTER DEDUCTING PURCHASE COST OF @40,89,553/- FROM THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF @52,77,500/- A SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF @11,87 ,947/- WAS WORKED OUT AND ADDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ASSESSEE REI TERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. A S PER ASSESSEE, IT HAD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIO NS. FURTHER, AS PER ASSESSEE PERFORMANCE OF THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WAS NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT LAND TRANSFERRED WAS SITUATED AT AVALPOONDURAI BEYOND 8KMS OF OUTER LIMITS OF ERODE MUNICIPALITY. ITA NO.1935/MDS/2016 :- 8 -: HENCE ACCORDING TO HIM, IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL ASSET. HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE FOR SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 12. NOW BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT NOTHING WAS AVAILABLE ON R ECORD TO SHOW HOW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LAND WAS BEYOND 8 KMS FROM OUTER LIMITS OF ERODE MUNICAPLITY WAS REACHED. AS PER LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY AGRICUL TURAL OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE IN ITS BOOKS. THE LAND WAS PURCHASED W ITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER TO THE COMPANY. AS PER L D. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD WENT BY MERE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND GIVEN RELIEF. 13. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT RELIEF WAS GIVEN AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 14 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PER USED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSMENT OR DER DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A WHISPER REGARDING DISTANCE OF THE LAND SOLD FROM THE OUTER BOUNDARY OF ERODE MUNICIPALITY. ALL ALONG, THE CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT LAND TRANSFERRED WAS AGRICULTURAL AND TRANSFER FELL AS ITA NO.1935/MDS/2016 :- 9 -: SUCH WITHIN CLAUSE (XIII) OF SEC. 47 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS NO T ACCEPTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF S HORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS WERE NOT RELATED TO EACH OTHER. WE ARE THERE FORE, OF THE OPINION THAT ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH LOOK BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. WE SETASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE ISSUE REG ARDING ADDITION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NE EDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE IS FREE TO RAISE ANY PLEA IN SUPPORT OF IT S CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS NO CAPITAL GAINS AND CAN ALSO PRODUCE RECORDS T O SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. 15 IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 16. VIDE GROUND NO.4, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT DISALLOWANCE OF 50% MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON PURCHASE OF PLASTIC TRAY AND MILK CANS WAS DELETED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 17. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHA SED MILK CAN AND MILK CRATE FOR @19,49,125/- AND @17,25,155/- RE SPECTIVELY AGGREGATING TO @36,74,280/- DURING THE RELEVANT PRE VIOUS YEAR. THE LD. ITA NO.1935/MDS/2016 :- 10 -: ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THESE WER E CAPITAL ACQUISITION AND COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. T HOUGH ASSESSEE RELIED ON A DECISION OF VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S. TIRUMALA MILK PRODUCTS PVT. LTD (ITA NO.282/VIZAG/2011 , DATED 12.04.2011) WHICH CONSIDERED THE QUESTION WHETHER EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON MILK CAN AND MILK CRATE BY A DIARY FIRM WAS ALLOWABLE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, DISALLO WED THE CLAIM TAKING A VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT GIVEN A SPEAKING ORDER. 18. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS THAT IT WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING A MILK DIARY AND PURCHASING MILK CAN AND MILK CRATES WAS IN THE ORDINARY THE COURSE OF SUCH BUSIN ESS. AS PER ASSESSEE, IT RECEIVED NO ENDURING BENEFIT THROUGH S UCH ACQUISITION SINCE LIFE OF CRATES AND CANS WERE ONLY FOUR TO SIX MONTHS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS APPRECIATI VE OF THESE CONTENTIONS. ACCORDING TO HIM, SUCH EXPENDITURE CO ULD NOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 19. NOW BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT ACQUISITION OF CAN AND CR ATES WERE CAPITAL IN NATURE. ITA NO.1935/MDS/2016 :- 11 -: 20. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARE AGAIN RELIED ON THE DECISION OF VIZAG BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. TIRUMALA MILK PRODUCTS PVT. LTD (SUPRA) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FELL IN ERROR IN NOT ABIDING BY THE SAID D ECISION. 21. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ISSUE WHETHER EXPENDITURE FOR MILK CAN AND MILK CRATES ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE BUSINESS OF DIARY FARM, WAS REVENUE OR CAPITAL IN NATURE HAD C OME UP BEFORE THE VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. TIRUMALA MILK PRODUCTS PVT. LTD (SUPRA). IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FELL IN ERROR IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF A HIGHER JUDICIAL BODY. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE. NO INTERFERE IS REQUIRED. GROUND N O. 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. 22. CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE MAIN LY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ). HOWEVER, IN CROSS OBJECTION, ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A GROUND THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN A MISCELLAN EOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SUSTAINED AN ADDITION MADE BY THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER, BY DISALLOWING A CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL IN COME. ITA NO.1935/MDS/2016 :- 12 -: 23. WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE GROUND IN THE CROSS OBJ ECTION IS AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), IN A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ISSUE DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE ORDER ASSAILED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL WH ICH IS DATED 28.03.2016. HENCE IN OUR OPINION SUCH CROSS OBJECT ION HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 24. IN THE RESULT, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED. 25. TO SUMMARIZE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SD/ - ( . ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) $ % & / JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ' % & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER +& / CHENNAI , / DATED: 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 KV - ' $'./ 0/' / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 3. 1' () / CIT(A) 5. /45 $'6 / DR 2. $% ! / RESPONDENT 4. 1' / CIT 6. 57 8& / GF