K.Sengottaiyan, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1016/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8695 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B / SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ ITA NOS.1015, 1016 & 1017/MDS/2016 # $%# / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 TO 2011-12 SHRI K. SENGOTTAIYAN, C/O M/S SUBBARAYA AIYAR PADMANABHAN & RAMAMANI ADVOCATES, NEW NO.75 OLD NO.105, DR. RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, (OPP. HOTEL PRESIDENT), MYLAPORE, CHENNAI - 600 004. PAN : BEUPS 3598 L V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5), ERODE. ('(/ APPELLANT) ()*'(/ RESPONDENT) '( + , / APPELLANT BY : SH. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE )*'( + , / RESPONDENT BY : SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT - $ + ./ / DATE OF HEARING : 13.06.2016 01% + ./ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.08.2016 / O R D E R ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 3, COIMBATORE, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 9-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDE RATION IN ALL 2 I.T.A. NOS.1015 TO 1017/MDS/16 THESE THREE APPEALS, WE HEARD THESE APPEALS TOGETHE R AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN I.T.A. NO. 1017/MDS/2016 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LI MITATION. IN FACT, THE REGISTRY HAS ISSUED A DEFECT MEMO POINTING OUT THE DELAY OF 140 DAYS. INSPITE OF THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FI LED ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. SINCE THERE IS NO PRAYER FROM THE ASSESSEE TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 140 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS NOT MAINTAI NABLE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO.1017/ MDS/2016 IS DISMISSED. 3. NOW COMING TO OTHER YEARS, THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS AG RICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ` 19,38,000/-; FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ` 27,57,500/- AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ` 15,72,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF MATE RIAL FOR SALE OF 3 I.T.A. NOS.1015 TO 1017/MDS/16 COCONUT, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ACC EPTED. NOW COMING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING 12. 55 ACRES OF LAND IN JAMBAI VILLAGE AND ANOTHER 25.71 ACRES IN O RICHERI VILLAGE. THE ASSESSEE CULTIVATED COCONUT AND ARECA NUT TREES . THE CULTIVATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE YIELDING CAPACITY ON THE BASI S OF THE SO-CALLED REPORT FROM THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE COCONUT IN THE M ARKET AND THE NET PROFIT WAS DECLARED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. TH EREFORE, THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BAS IS OF SO-CALLED REPORT OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, BHAVAN I IS NOT CORRECT. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE CULTIVATION OF COCONUT AND ARECA NUT TREES IS NOT IN DISPUTE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO TAKE THE EXPE CTED YIELD FROM THE COCONUT TREES AND THE REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT D IRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR MAKING ANY DISALL OWANCE. FURTHERMORE, PRODUCING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR SAL E OF COCONUT IS IMPOSSIBLE ONE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, T HE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR AGRICULTURAL 4 I.T.A. NOS.1015 TO 1017/MDS/16 ACTIVITIES, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF PRODUCED A TECHNICAL REPORT CLAIMING THAT THE COCONUT TREES CU LTIVATED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE OF HIGHER QUALITY AND BIGGER IN SIZE. THE STATE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT HAS PROVIDED THE RATE PREVAI LING DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON VARIOUS DATES DEPENDING UPON VARIETY OF THE COCONUTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED AN Y DETAILS OF THE VARIETIES OF COCONUT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ADOPTED THE AVERAGE RATE OF THE THREE VARIETIES. IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY MATERIAL FOR SALE OF COCONUTS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, TH E OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM COCONUT TREES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS), AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTU AL SITUATION IN THIS CASE, CONFIRMED THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CULTIVATED 12.55 ACRES OF LAND IN JAMBAI VILLAGE AND 25.71 ACR ES OF LAND IN 5 I.T.A. NOS.1015 TO 1017/MDS/16 ORICHERI VILLAGE. IN JAMBAI VILLAGE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CULTIVATED NEARLY 860 COCONUT TREES AND IN ORICHERI VILLAGE, T HE ASSESSEE HAS CULTIVATED 1837 COCONUT TREES. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ESTIMATED THE YIELD FROM EACH COCONUT TREE FROM ORICHERI VILLAGE AT 201 PER TREE. SIMILARLY, IN JAMBAI VILLAGE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED 92 COCONUTS PER TREE IN A YEAR. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AVERAGE YIELD FROM THE COCONUT IS 100 TO 120 NUTS PER TREE IN A YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN FACT , ESTIMATED THE YIELD VERY FAIRLY. THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS BEYOND THE AVERAGE YIELD FOR A COCONUT TREE. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE PREVAILING RATE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008-09 ` 5 PER COCONUT AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE EVE N THOUGH DECLARED THE INCOME FROM COCONUT TREES AT ` 31,14,900 AND THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ` 19,38,000/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM COCONUT AT ` 22,41,785/-. ULTIMATELY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOU ND THAT THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE SALE OF COCONUT IS ` 10,64,885/-. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ESTI MATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COCONUT TREES IS ABOVE AV ERAGE, THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. 6 I.T.A. NOS.1015 TO 1017/MDS/16 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24 TH AUGUST, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3! /DATED, THE 24 TH AUGUST, 2016. KRI. + ).45 65%. /COPY TO: 1. '( /APPELLANT 2. )*'( /RESPONDENT 3. - 7. () /CIT(A)-3, COIMBATORE 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, COIMBATORE 5. 5$8 ). /DR 6. 9# : /GF.