Reena Panda, Balasore V. ITO, Balasore

ITA 101/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 10122114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A BHATTACHARJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: P K MISHRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NO. 101,102,103 AND 104/CTK /2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2004 - 05,2005 - 06,2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08) SMT.REEN A PANDA, PROP. M/S.R.K.INTEGRATED FARM, ICHHAPUR, BAHANAGA, DIST.BALASORE 756 042 PAN: ADRPP 4177 H VERSUS THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, BALASORE (WARD 1), BALASORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI P.K.MISHRA, AR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI A.B HATTACHARJEE, DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 9. 0 8.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.08.2011 ORDER PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS FOR THE AYS 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 ARISE OUT OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS ) COMMON TO THESE YEARS DT.26.11.2010. 2. COMMON ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATING THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO OBSERVE THAT HAVING CONSIDERED AGRICULTURAL OPERATION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SALE OF BONSAI AND OTHER PLANTS THE BASIC AGRICULTURAL OPERATION HAD FINISHED TILL SUCH TIME THE SAPLING WAS IMPLANTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEES AGRICULTURAL LAND BEING THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S.R.K.INTEGRATED FARM FOLLOWING THE APEX COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAJA BINAY KUMA R SAHAS RAY [ (1957) 32 ITR 466 ] . THE ASSESSEE AGITATES THAT THE SUBSEQUENT OPERATIONS IN NURTURING THE SAPLINGS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED OTHERWISE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AGAINST WHICH THEY ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FOUR YEARS ON THIS BASIC COMMON ISSUE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS AS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON R ECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN S FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH WERE SUBJECTED TO PROCEEDINGS U/S.147/148 WHEN A SURVEY OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON ITA NO.101,102,103 AND 104/CTK/2011 2 6.3.2009 WHEN A VISIT AT THE FA RM HOUSE RESULTED IN A STATEMENT TAKEN ON OATH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED DENIAL OF EXEMPTION OF INCOME BEING AGRICULTURAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NON - AGRICULTURE. PRACTICALLY A COMMON ASSESSMENT ORDER (EXCEPT FI GURES) HAS BEEN PASSED FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN A COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN MISINTERPRETED INSOFAR AS THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE TO THE EXTENT WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) NEGATED BY TRYING TO IMPORT THE LITERAL MEANING OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATION TO BE CARRIED OUT BUT BY BORROWING THE MEANING THEREOF FROM PLETHORA OF JUDGMENTS WHICH SUI TED HIM TO DECIDE THAT HAVING ROOTED THE SAPLING OR PLANT AND REPLANTING IT AT THE ASSESSEES AGRICULTURAL FARM DID NOT INVOLVE CARRYING OUT ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATION THEREFORE THE INCOME ON SALES THEREOF COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED EXEMPT U/S.10(1) OF THE IN COME - TAX ACT,1961 WHICH INCOME WAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. SHRI P.K.MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INITIATING HIS ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT THE BASIC CONCEPT OF GROWING B ONSAI PLANT HAS BEEN MISCONSTRUED BY ADOPTING THE HONBLE APEX COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAJA BINAY KUMAR SAHAS RAY [ (1957) 32 ITR 466 ] . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM R . K . INTEGRATE FARM FROM C ULTI VATION AND OF FRUITS AN D VEGETABLES, SEEDLINGS AND BONSAI TREE S . THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH IS THE FA RM HOUSE, PERFORMS AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, SPENDS HUMAN LABOUR AND SKILL IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OPERATIONS. FURTHER TO THIS, REGARDING THE INCOME FROM SALE OF BONSAI TREE, A S THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IT WAS WELL KNOWN THAT THERE IS (I) AGRICULTURAL LAND (FARM HOUSE), (II) H UMAN SKILL IS EMPLOYED , ( III) THE CULTIVATION OF BONSAI IS DONE BY PLANTING ITA NO.101,102,103 AND 104/CTK/2011 3 TREE IN THE SOIL OF FARM HOUSE, (IV) W HILE PLANTING THE TREE S IN SOIL PRIMARY OPERATIONS LIKE TILLING OF LAND, PLANTING, MANURING, WATERING ETC IS PERFORMED, (V) S UBSEQUENT OPERATION LIKE PRUNING , CUTTING ETC IS ALSO PERFORMED, ( VI) T HE PLANT WHEN TRANSPORTED IF AGAIN UPROOTED AND PLANTED IN POLYTHENE BAG FOR TRANSPO RTATION. THIS SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION DOES NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE TO BUSINESS. T HE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON A NUMBER OF CASES DECIDED BY DIFFERENT COURTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE , ONE AMONG THEM IS CIT V. SOUNDARYA NURSERY (2000 ) 241 ITR 530 (MAD) . TO RELATE TO END THE CONTROVERSY WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS , THE LEGISLATURE FINALLY INSERTED EXPLANATION - 3 TO SECTION 2(1A) BY FINANCE ACT 2008 , WHICH STATES - FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE, ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM SAPLING OR SEEDLING IN A NURSERY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE AGRICULTURAL IN COME . AS THIS IS AN EXPLANATION AND NOT AN AMENDMENT , IT WAS APPLICABLE TO EARLIER YEARS ALSO. CONTINUING HIS ARGUMENTS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICERS PLACING RELIANCE ON THE CITED APEX COURTS DECISION, HE FIN E TUNED THE CONTENTION AS HAS BEEN MISINTERPRETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY QUOTING THE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THAT DECISION, WHICH RATHER LEANS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : THIS DISTINCTION IS NOT SO IMPOR TANT IN CASES WHERE THE AGRICULTURIST PERFORMS THESE OPERATIONS AS A PART OF HIS INTEGRATED ACTIVITY IN CULTIVATION OF THE LAND. WHERE, HOWEVER, THE PRODUCTS OF THE LAND ARE OF SPONTANEOUS GROWTH, UNASSISTED BY HUMAN SKILL AND LABOUR, AND HUMAN SKILL AND L ABOUR ARE SPENT MERELY IN FOSTERING THE GROWTH, PRESERVATION AND REGENERATION OF SUCH PRODUCTS OF LAND, THE QUESTION FALLS TO BE CONSIDERED WHETHER THESE SUBSEQUENT OPERATIONS PERFORMED BY THE AGRICULTURIST ARE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND ENJOY THE CHARACT ERISTIC OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. IT IS AGREED ON ALL HANDS THAT PRODUCTS WHICH GROW WILD ON THE LAND OR ARE OF SPONTANEOUS GROWTH NOT INVOLVING ANY HUMAN LABOUR OR SKILL UPON THE LAND ARE NOT PRODUCTS OF AGRICULTURE AND THE INCOME ITA NO.101,102,103 AND 104/CTK/2011 4 DERIVED THEREFROM I S NOT AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THERE IS NO PROCESS OF AGRICULTURE INVOLVED IN THE RAISING OF THESE PRODUCTS FROM THE LAND. THERE ARE NO AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME, AND THE ONLY WORK WHICH THE ASSESSEE PERFORMS HERE IS THAT OF COLLECTING THE PRODUCE AND CONSUMING AND MARKETING THE SAME. NO AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN PERFORMED AND THERE IS NO QUESTION AT ALL OF THE INCOME DERIVED THERE FROM BEING AGRICULTURAL INCOME WITHIN THE DEFINITION GIVEN IN SECTION 2(1) OF THE INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT. WHERE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE PERFORMS SUBSEQUENT OPERATIONS ON THESE PRODUCTS OF LAND WHICH ARE OF WILD OR SPONTANEOUS GROWTH, THE NATURE OF THOSE OPERATIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATE D ABOVE. APPLYING THESE PRINCIPLES TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE NO DOUBT START WITH THE FINDING THAT THE FOREST IN QUESTION WAS OF SPONTANEOUS GROWTH. IF THERE WERE NO OTHER FACTS FOUND, THAT WOULD ENTAIL THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME IS NOT AG RICULTURAL INCOME. BUT THEN, IT HAS ALSO BEEN FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE FOREST IS MORE THAN 50 YEARS OLD, THOUGH PORTIONS OF THE FOREST HAVE FROM TIME TO TIME BEEN DENUDED, THAT IS TO SAY, TREES HAVE COMPLETELY FALLEN AND THE PROPRIETORS HAVE PLANTED FRESH TREES IN THOSE AREAS, AND THEY HAVE PERFORMED OPERATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF NURSING THE TREES PLANTED BY THEM. IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT SO FAR AS THOSE TREES ARE CONCERNED, THE INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM WOULD BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE FAC T THAT THE FOREST IS MORE THAN 150 YEARS OLD, THE AREAS WHICH HAD THUS BECOME DENUDED AND REPLANTED CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE NEGLIGIBLE. THE POSITION THEREFORE IS THAT THE WHOLE OF THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE FOREST CANNOT BE TREATED AS NON AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IF THE ENQUIRY HAD BEEN DIRECTED ON PROPER LINES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO ASCERTAIN HOW MUCH OF THE INCOME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO FOREST OF SPONTANEOUS GROWTH AND HOW MUCH TO TREES PLANTED BY THE PROPRIETORS. BUT N O SUCH ENQUIRY HAD BEEN DIRECTED, AND IN VIEW OF THE LONG LAPSE OF TIME, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT DESIRABLE TO DIRECT ANY SUCH ENQUIRY NOW. THE EXPENDITURE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE FOREST IS ABOUT RS. 17,000 AS AGAINST A TOTAL INCOME O F ABOUT RS. 51,000. HAVING REGARD TO THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS FIGURE, WE THINK THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE INCOME MUST HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM TREES PLANTED BY THE PROPRIETORS ITA NO.101,102,103 AND 104/CTK/2011 5 THEMSELVES. AS NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH WHICH P ORTION OF THE INCOME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO FOREST OF SPONTANEOUS GROWTH, THERE ARE NO MATERIALS ON WHICH WE COULD SAY THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS WRONG. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN ANOTHER DECISION RENDERED BY THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUDIS HA FARM NURSERY V. INCOME - TAX OFFICER [2004] 88 ITD 638 (DELHI) , ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WAS PLEASED TO HOLD THAT THE COMPUTATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE MANNER THAT THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AND NOT MISCONSTRUE AS COMPUTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW PLAYING THE ROLE OF AN AGRICULTURIST. 5. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY SUBMITTING THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 INTENDED BY INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SUB - S ECTION (II) OF SECTION 2A INDICATING ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM SAPLING AND SEEDLING IN A NURSERY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ONLY SUGGESTS THAT THE SAME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME W.E.F. THE AY 2008 - 09 WHICH WAS I S NOT IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE SETTLES THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION ARE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER THE PLANTS ARE SHIFTED AND MATURED, CULTURED AND NURTURED UNDER A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS IN THE NATURE OF CARRYING OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOW ING THE SAME EARLIER OPERATIONS WHICH SYSTEM IS IN THE IMPUGNED AYS THEREFORE CULMINATES TO THE FINAL FINDING THAT PLANT OR PLANTS THEREFORE COULD WHET HER BE DISTINCT AS BONSAI OR OTHERWISE AS SAPLING OR SEEDLING NURSERY IS A DISTINCTION ITA NO.101,102,103 AND 104/CTK/2011 6 IRRELEVANT TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE BASIC PLANT MAY HAVE BEEN GROWN SPONTANEOUSLY OR FROM A SEED ON CARRYING OUT BASIC OPERATION ON SOIL THE SAME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED A S AGRICULTURE PRODUCE. THE QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION WHETHER THE INCOME FROM SALE OF PLANTS GROWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN NURSERY/FARM CAN BE SAID TO AGRICULTURAL INC OME AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(1A ) OF THE I.T.ACT,1961 HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE INS OFAR AS THE INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM LAND WHICH IS SITUATED IN INDIA AND IS USED FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE. THE OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS THEREFORE RENDERED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAVE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORD AGRICULTURE. THE MEANING OF THE WORD AGRICULTURE IS NO MORE RES INTE GRA IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMEN T OF HONBLE APEX COURT, WHICH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED AS MENTIONED ABOVE. AGRICULTURAL OPERATION IN ITS PRIMARY SENSE DENOTES THE CULTIVATION OF THE FIELD AND IS RESTRICTED TO THE CULTIVATION OF LAND IN THE STRICT SENSE OF TH E TERM MEANING THEREBY TILLING OF THE LAND, SOWING OF SEEDS , PLANTING AND SIMILAR OPERATIONS IN THE LAND. HAVING SAID SO, HONBLE SUPREME COURT LET THE SAME TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE INSOFAR AS THE A CTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER HAVING RECOGNIZED A PARTICULAR PLANT TO BE PRODUCED AS BONSAI CARRIED OUT THE SAME ACTIVITIES SUCH AS IMPLANTING A SAPLING TO THE SOIL, PREPARING SOIL BED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATURE OF THE PLANT TO GROW IN ITS NORMAL ATMOSPHERE BUT AT THE SAME TIME NOT TO LET IT TO GROW BEYOND CERTAIN HEIGHT AND WIDTH IN ORDER TO BE CALLED A MINIATURE SO THA T IT GAINS VALUE AS BONSAI TREE . THE BONSAI TREE IS NOTHING BUT A PRODUCT ON WHICH PRIMARY AND BASIC OPERATION OF AGRICULT URE IS CARRIED INSOFAR AS IN ORDER TO MAKE THE BIOLOGICAL CHANGE IN IT, IT ITA NO.101,102,103 AND 104/CTK/2011 7 HAD TO MAKE ELIGIBLE CONTINUE TO LIVE WITHIN A LIMITED AREA. THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE TREES/PLANT UPROOTED FROM SOIL AND TAKEN TO FARM IN POT OR POLYTHENE BAGS FILLED WITH SO IL FOR SALE OR TRANSPORTATION WILL NOT AFFECT OR CHANGE THE NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. BONSAI PLANTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED ON THE LAND BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE ARE SEVERAL AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS , AS EXPLAINED IN BRIEF AND OBSERVED IN THE ORDER OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW , THAT TRANSPLANTING IN A SUITABLE CONTAINER INCLUDING POTS AND KEPT AT THE PROPER PLACE I.E., GREEN HOUSE OR IN THE SHED AND AFTER PERFORMING SEVERAL OPERATIONS, SUCH AS WEEDING, WATERING, M ANURING ETC., THEY ARE MADE READY FOR SALE AS BONSAI PLANT. IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO PLO UGH THE LAND WHICH IS A MUST FOR IMPLANTING A SEED . THE VERY NATURE OF THE PLANT ULTIMATELY NURTURED, I S SUCH THAT IT HAS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF INDEPENDENTLY. ONCE THE PLANTS ARE ABLE TO LIVE OR OUT GROW THE BASIC AGR ICULTURAL OPERATION CARRIED OUT AND THEY ARE READY FOR SALE INSOFAR AS THE BONSAI IS TO LIVE THE LIFE OF THE ORIGINAL TREE WHICH FETCHES A VALUE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS TRADING ANY PLANTS BUT DEVELOPING AND GROWING PLANTS FROM ITS BI RTH TO THE POINT OF SAPLING/NURSING . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CARRYING ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND ITS INCOME IS FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT WHICH FACT WAS ESTABLISHED IN ALL THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THEREF ORE MISDIRECTED THEMSELVES TO HOLD OTHERWISE ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CITATION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HAD A FIRM BELIEF THAT THE BONSAI TREES GROW NOT ON LAND BUT FROM A CUTTING OF THE MAIN BRANCH OF A TREE WHICH HAS SPONTANEO USLY GROWN ELSEWHERE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , AS MENTIONED ABOVE , INSOFAR AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSES SMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE VERY FACT THAT A SURVEY OPERATION WAS ITA NO.101,102,103 AND 104/CTK/2011 8 CARRIED OUT AT THE FARM OF THE ASSESSEE, A NURSERY AND THE BO NSAI PLANT GROWN IN THE FARM HAD BEEN PHYSICALLY VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THEREFORE ONLY AN EXERCIS E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO BRING ON RECORD THE CASE LAW TO BE DISTINGUISHED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION THEREFORE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING CARRIED OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATION IN THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT YEAR S IS MERE LY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS IN THE MINDS OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES TO THE EXTENT THAT NATURE WHICH IS FULL OF SURPRISE S AND BOUNTY HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO CONSIDERATION WHEN INCOME WAS PROPOSED TO BE CONSIDERED AS NON - AGRICULTURAL. A FARMER NURTURES A PLANT OR SAPLINGS WHICH IT GETS AFTER SOWING SEEDS I S ALSO DONE BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN IT IS TO GROW TILL SUCH TIME IT GETS THE FRUIT OF LABOUR AS A MINIATURE TO BE CONSIDERED AS CARRYING OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS FOR THE PRODUCE TO GENERATE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND HAS BEEN RETURNED WITH APPROPRIATELY BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS THEREFORE, SET TING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) , DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE SAME AS EXEMPT UNDE R THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(1 ) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. S D/ - S D/ - (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 12.08.2011 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SEC RETARY. ITA NO.101,102,103 AND 104/CTK/2011 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: SMT.REENA PANDA, PROP. M/S.R.K.INTEGRATED FARM, ICHHAPUR, BAHANAGA, DIST.BALASORE 756 042 2. THE RESPONDENT: THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, BALASORE (WARD 1), BALASORE. 3. T HE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER,