P.Easwaramurthi, Coimbatore V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 4(2), Coimbatore

ITA 1461/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6141 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAGHU

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.1461/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-2014. P. EASWARAMURTHI, NO.46G (5), CHINNATHAMBI GOUNDER STREET, BEHIND PETROL BUNK, POOLUVAMPATTI, COIMBATORE 641 101. [PAN AAEPE 5687R] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 4(2) COIMBATORE ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. K. RAGHU, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. B. SAGADEVAN, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 17.01.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .01. 201 9 / O R D E R IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS D IRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 13.02.2018 OF LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, COIMBATORE, IT IS AGGRIEVED ON DENIAL OF ITS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF 18,81,360/-. 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE A PARTNER OF TWO FI RMS CALLED M/S. EASWAR TEXTILES AND M/S. SAJEESH TRADERS HAD F ILED HIS RETURN FOR ITA NO.1461/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING INCOME OF 4,31,190/-. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CLAIMED EXEMPTION FOR AGRICULTUR AL INCOME OF 33,18,021/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM FOR AGRICULT URAL INCOME. ASSESSEE THEREUPON PRODUCED CERTAIN DETAILS OF AGR ICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY HIM AS WELL AS DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND EXPENSES. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBTAINED CHITTA AND ADANGAL F ROM THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND FROM THE CHITTA AND ADAN GAL FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD COCONUT CULTIVATION IN 5.84 ACRES OF L AND AND GRAPES IN 7.53 ACRES OF LAND. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN T HE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM COCONUTS. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WHICH READ AS UNDER: - A CHITTA ADANGAL HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE REVENU E AUTHORITY TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY YOU. IN THE CHITTA ADANGAL, THE REVENUE AUTHORITY CERTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE CULTI VATED COCONUT IN 5.84 ACRES AND GRAPES IN 7.53 ACRES. THEREFORE, ON THE B ASIS OF CHITTA ADANGAL CERTIFIED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY, THE GRO SS AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT AS BELOW, IF YOU HAVE A NY OBJECTION ON THE GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME CALCULATED BY THE DEP ARTMENT, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN WITH SUITABLE/CONCRETE EVIDENC ES. COCONUT: TOTAL NUMBER OF COCONUT TREES IN 5.84 ACRES =5.84 A CRES X 70 TREES PER ACRES= 409 TREES. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ABOVE NOTICE WAS AS UNDER:- THE NUMBER OF ACRES I AM CULTIVATING THE COCONUT CROP IS IN 11.49 ACRES BUT YOU HAVE STATED AS PER THE CHITTA PRODUCE D BY THE VAO IS ONLY 5.84 ACRES. HERE ALSO THE VAO HAS NOT UPDATED THE RECORDS WITH THE COCONUT CROPS. IF YOU MAKE PERSONAL INSPECTION YOU CAN SEE THE ITA NO.1461/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: COCONUTS TREES WHICH ARE IN YIELDING CONDITION AND ALL HE COCONUT TREES ARE AGED MORE THAN 8 TO 9 YEARS. THIS IS ONE OF THE PROOF THAT THE RECORDS OF THE VAO IS NOT UPDATED. THE ACTUAL NUMBE R OF TREES ARE IN MY FARM IS 750 NOS WHICH CAN BE COUNTED PHYSICALLY AND ALSO THE YIELD PER TREE ANNUM IS TAKEN AT 210 NOS AS PER YOUR CALC ULATION AND WHEREAS AS PER THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY ME IS 300 NOS PER TREE PER ANNUM. THE REASON FOR HAVING GOOD YIELD IS THAT, I AM BRINGING THE WATER TO MY FIELD FROM THE RIVER BED WHERE I AM HAV ING A SEPARATE BORE WELL AND WHICH CONTAINS GOOD MINERALS COMPARED TO T HE WELL WATER SITUATED INSIDE THE FARM. OUT OF 804 COCONUT TREES ABOUT 54 COCONUT TREES WERE DIED DUE TO THE DISEASE AND DUE TO THE T HUNDER DURING THESE 2 YEARS AND AT PRESENT 750 COCONUT TREES UNDER YIEL DING. 3. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE YIELD FRO M COCONUT TREES. HE ISSUED A NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) TO TAMILNADU AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, COIMBATORE. THE SAID UNIVERSITY THEREUPON GAVE A REPLY STATING THAT YIEL DING CAPACITY OF THE COCONUT TREE FROM 8 TH YEAR ONWARDS CONSIDERING 100% FRUITING WAS ONLY 120 NUTS. AS PER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESS EE, WHEN HE APPEARED PERSONALLY BEFORE HIM, HAD NOT DISPUTED TH E YIELD CERTIFIED BY THE TAMILNADU AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY. LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER THEREFORE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH R EGARD TO YIELD FROM COCONUT TREES AT THE RATE 120 NUTS FOR EACH TREE AN D DISALLOWED BALANCE CLAIM OF 180 NUTS. FOR 804 TREES, THE EXCES S CLAIM WAS WORKED OUT AT 18,81,360/-, CONSIDERING A SALE PRICE OF 13 PER NUT. SUCH AMOUNT WAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXEMPTION. ASSESSEES AP PEAL BEFORE LD. ITA NO.1461/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT MEET W ITH ANY SUCCESS. 4. NOW BEFORE ME, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRON GLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMI TTED THAT NO BENEFIT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YIELD FROM COCONU T TREES AND WHAT WAS EFFECTIVELY ALLOWED WAS ONLY YIELD FROM GRAPES . ACCORDING TO HIM, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT WARRANTED. 5. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS CLEAR FROM T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ASSESSEE WHEN HE APPEARED BEFORE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER, HAD NOT DISPUTED THE MAXIMUM YIELD OF 120 NUTS FROM ON E COCONUT TREE AS CERTIFIED BY TAMILNADU AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY. NO DOUBT, ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT HE WAS HAVING ONLY 750 TREES YIELDING COCONUTS AND 54 COCONUTS TREES WERE DEAD. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THIS CLAIM. WHAT L D. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED WAS ONLY THE VALUE OF EXCESS YIE LD CLAIMED FROM THE COCONUT TREES. ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED 300 NUTS PER T REE, WHEREAS TAMILNADU AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY HAD CERTIFIED TH E YIELDING CAPACITY OF ITA NO.1461/CHNY/2018 :- 5 -: 120 NUTS. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ONLY DISALLOWED EXCESS OF 180 NUTS PER TREE VALUING IT AT THE RATE OF RS.13/- PER COCO NUT. ASSESSEE NEVER DISPUTED THE VALUE OF RS.13/- PER COCONUT ADOPTED B Y THE LD. AO. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO I NTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI / DATED: 24TH JANUARY, 2019 KV / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ( ) / CIT(A) 5. / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. / CIT 6. / GF