ACIT Salary Circle II, CHENNAI V. B.Jayalakshmi, CHENNAI

ITA 1513/CHNY/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2527 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 15 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2003
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Keywords: Gift; Question of law; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH : CHENNAI . , . , [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NOS.1512 TO 1514/CHNY/2003 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1995-96 TO 1997-98 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALARY CIRCLE-II CHENNAI-600 034. VS. MRS.B.JAYALAKSHMI, FLAT NO.195, 15 TH STREET, III AVENUE ANNA NAGAR WEST EXTN. CHENNAI-600 101. [PAN : 827 - J ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN, A DVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, J CIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 01.11. 2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 . 11. 201 8 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE THREE APPEALS COVER ISSUES REMITTED BACK TO T HIS TRIBUNAL BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THROU GH A JUDGEMENT DATED 30.07.2018 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NOS. 88 TO 9 0 OF 2014 IN TCA NOS.819 TO 821 OF 2010, BY WHICH THEIR LORDSHIP S REVIEWED AND RECALLED ITS OWN JUDGEMENT IN TCA NOS.819 TO 821 O F 2010 DATED 30.09.2013. THE ISSUES REMITTED RELATE TO DISALLO WANCE OF ITA NOS.1512 TO 1514/2003 :- 2 -: AGRICULTURAL INCOME MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER, SUBSEQUENTLY ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND LATE R REINSTATED BY A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THROUGH THE JUDGEMENT R EFERRED SUPRA PRIMARILY REQUIRES THIS TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE ON THE Q UESTION OF JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) F OR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. AS PER THE LEARNED DR, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAD CLEARLY OBSERVED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD TO CONSI DER ALL OTHER ISSUES IN THE APPEALS, IF THE QUESTION OF JURISDIC TION WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 3. CONTINUING HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED DR STATE D THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD IN THE EARLIER ROUND OVERRULED THE DE CISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) FOR THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEARS AND REINSTATED THE DISALLOWANCE O F AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE LEARNED DR, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAD RELIED ON A REMAND REPORT DATED 25.11.2002 OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER FOR GIVING ITA NOS.1512 TO 1514/2003 :- 3 -: RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR WAS THAT THE REMAND REPORT GIVEN BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 , 1995-96, 1996-97 AND 1997-98. AS PER THE LEARNED DR, FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96, 1996-97 AND 1997-98, THER E WERE ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES APART FROM THOSE FOR AG RICULTURAL INCOME. ACCORDING TO HIM, IN THE VERY SAME REMAND REPORT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SPECIFICALLY REQUES TED THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO DECIDE THOSE ISSUES OTHER THAN THAT OF AG RICULTURAL INCOME ON MERITS. 4. ADVERTING TO THE MERITS OF THE DISALLOWANCES, L D, DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER ROUND H AD GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS RIGH TLY DISALLOWED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER . ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSES SEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS OF THE CROP CULTIVATED, AREA OF CULTIVATION, AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX PAID AND SALE BILLS FOR AGR ICULTURE PRODUCE. AS PER THE LEARNED DR, THOUGH IT WAS TRUE THAT TRI BUNAL HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT SUCH REPORT PERSE WOUL D NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. ITA NOS.1512 TO 1514/2003 :- 4 -: 5. ON THE OTHER ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 995-96, THERE WAS AN ADDITION OF 4,32,921/- FOR GIFTS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER DAUGHTERS, AND AN ADDITION OF 2,00,000/- FOR A LOAN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER AUNT SMT.S.SARASWATHI. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 THERE WAS AN AD DITION OF 30,500/- AGAIN CLAIMED AS GIFTS RECEIVED FROM ASSE SSEES DAUGHTERS AND AN ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- FOR UNPROVED LOAN AGAIN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SMT.SARASWATHI. SIMILAR LY, ACCORDING TO HIM, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98, THERE WAS AN ADDITION OF 3,01,693/-, AGAIN CLAIMED AS GIFTS RECEIVED FROM A SSESSEES DAUGHTERS, AND AN ADDITION OF 30,00,000/- FOUND I N THE BANK LOCKER OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT PROPERLY EXPL AINED. AS PER THE LEARNED DR, SINCE THE CASES HAVE BEEN REMITTED BACK TO THIS TRIBUNAL BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT T HROUGH THE JUDGEMENT IN REVIEW APPLICATION NOS. 88 TO 90 OF 20 14 DATED 30.07.2018, ALL THESE ISSUES HAD TO BE RE-CONSIDERE D BY THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NOS.1512 TO 1514/2003 :- 5 -: 6. PER CONTRA, LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS, AS WELL AS THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95, WERE ORIGINALLY DISPO SED OF BY THIS TRIBUNAL THROUGH A COMMON ORDER DATED 21.08.2009 I N ITA NOS.1511 TO 1514/MDS/2003. AS PER THE LEARNED AR, A GAINST THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, REVENUE HAD NOT FILED ANY AP PEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. CONTENTION OF T HE LEARNED AR WAS THAT ASSESSEE ALONE HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THAT TOO ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AS PER THE LEARNED AR, HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD ADMITTED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE NUMBERING THEM AS TCA NOS.819 TO 821 OF 2010 AND THE SUBSTA NTIAL FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED FOR ADJUDICATION WAS AS UNDE R:- WHETHER THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RIGH T IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE, WHICH HAVING FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD BY TRAVERSING BEYOND T HE SCOPE OF THE RECORDS AND AGAINST THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE VARIOUS STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES AS A LSO THE ADMISSIONS MADE IN THE REMAND REPORT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF? ITA NOS.1512 TO 1514/2003 :- 6 -: ACCORDING TO HIM, A READING OF THE ABOVE WOULD CLEA RLY INDICATE THAT ASSESSE WAS AGGRIEVED ONLY ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF ITS CLAIM FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NOTHING ELSE. AS PER THE L EARNED AR, THOUGH THESE WERE INITIALLY DISMISSED BY THE HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THROUGH ITS JUDGEMENT DATED 30.09.2013 IN TCA NOS.819 TO 821 OF 2010, THEIR LORDSHIPS THROUGH TH E JUDGEMENT IN THE REVIEW APPLICATION MENTIONED SUPRA, HAD RECALLE D THE EARLIER JUDGEMENT AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE TRIB UNAL. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ONLY QUESTION THAT COULD BE C ONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL WAS ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE AGRICULTURA L INCOME AND NOTHING ELSE. ALL THE OTHER ISSUES, AS PER THE LEAR NED AR, STOOD DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THROUGH ITS EARLIER ORDER A ND HAD BECOME FINAL. 7. CONTINUING HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED AR STATE D THAT THE REMAND REPORT PLACED AT PAGE 168 OF THE PAPER BOOK CLEARLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ACCE PTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING DISCREET ENQUI RIES THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF THE INCOME TAX. AS PER THE LEARNED AR, THERE COULD BE NO APPEAL AGAINST AN ITEM ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITA NOS.1512 TO 1514/2003 :- 7 -: REMAND PROCEEDINGS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDG EMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RA MAN LAL KAMDAR VS.CIT (108 ITR 73). FURTHER ACCORDING TO HIM, APP EALS ON ISSUES WHERE THE REMAND REPORT WENT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SE, WENT AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL LITIGATION POLIC Y, PRESENTED BY THE HONBLE UNION MINISTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE, AND ADOP TED AT THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION FOR STRENGTHENING JUDICIARY T OWARDS REDUCING PENDENCY AND DELAYS, HELD ON 24/25 OF OCTOBER, 2009 . RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON A JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX VS. M/S. SRMB DAIRY FARMING (P)LTD. (CIVIL APPEAL NOS.19651 OF 2017 DATED 23,11.2017. SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF HIS ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVI NG ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE REVEN UE OUGHT NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), ACCEPTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ORIGINAL ORDER OF THIS TRIBUN AL, IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE, IN ITA NOS. 1511 TO 1514/MDS/ 2003 DATED 21.08.2009 FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE P LACED AT PAGE ITA NOS.1512 TO 1514/2003 :- 8 -: 217 TO 232 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THIS TRIBUNAL HAD CON SIDERED AND ADJUDICATED ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN THE SAID ORDER. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THE QUESTION OF AG RICULTURAL INCOME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND IT HAD REVE RSED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), EFFECTI VELY REINSTATING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. RELEVA NT PARA 4.3.5 OF THE SAID ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 4.3.5 : WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SIDES AND CONSIDER ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND FIND THAT FIRSTLY THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT REGISTERED THE LEASE DEED AGREEMENT FOR TAKING 30 A CRES OF LAND ON LEASE AND THE LEASE DEED NOT FIND A PLACE IN THE PANCHNAMA AND THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR FURNISHED BY THE CBI AUTHO RITIES. SECONDLY THE PARTICULARS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVI TY, SALE BILLS PERTAINING TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS CULTIVATION IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ARE N OT AT ALL FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HAD THE AS SESSEE CULTIVATED COCONUT AND PADDY IN SUCH A LARGE AREA O F 17 ACRES AND 13 ACRES RESPECTIVELY, IT COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE BEING AGAINST PROBABILITIES THAT THE COCONUT AND PADDY SO PRODU CED WERE DISPOSED OFF IN A VILLAGE ITSELF. MOREOVER, CULTIVA TION IN AN AREA OF 30 ACRES LAND WOULD DEFINITELY INCUR EXPENDITURE ON LABOUR, PURCHASE OF SEED, IRRIGATION, PESTICIDES, WEEDICIDE S ETC. FOR WHICH NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT LOOKED INTO THE FACTUAL ASPEC T PERTAINING IN THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS O R MATERIAL BUT JUST DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. CONSIDERI NG THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES, MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE DO NOT APPRO VE THE BASIS AND REASONING GIVEN BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY A ND WHILE ACCEPTING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON THIS POINT. ITA NOS.1512 TO 1514/2003 :- 9 -: 9. ASSESSEE HAD MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AGAINST THE TRIBUNALS DI RECTION. THESE APPEALS WERE NUMBERED AS TCA 819 TO 821 OF 2010 AND THEIR LORDSHIPS HAD PASSED THEIR JUDGEMENT IN THE SAID AP PEALS ON 30.09.2013, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 259 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE QUESTION OF LAW RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIP HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY US AT PARA 6 ABOVE. IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAD ASSAILED ONLY THE TREATMENT OF AGRICUL TURAL INCOME BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. REVEN UE HAD FILED NO APPEALS AGAINST THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ITA NOS.1511 TO 1514/MDS/2003 DATED 21.08.2009. THUS ON ALL OTHER A SPECTS THE TRIBUNAL ORDER HAD REACHED FINALITY. WHAT HAS BEE N RULED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.88 TO 90 OF 201 4 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE JUDGEMENT IN TCA NOS.819 T O 821 OF 2010, IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 24. IN THE RESULT, THE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE ALLOW ED AND THE JUDGEMENT DATED 30.09.2013, TAX CASE (APPEAL) NOS.819 TO 821 OF 2010 IS REVIEWED AND RECALLED AND THE APPEALS STAND DISPOSED OF BY REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF ITS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEA LS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF CIT(A). IN THE EVENT, THE TRIBUNAL DECIDES THE QUESTION IN FAV OUR OF THE REVENUE, IT SHALL RECONSIDER THE OTHER ISSU ES AFTER OPPORTUNITY TO THE REVENUE AND ASSESSE. ITA NOS.1512 TO 1514/2003 :- 10 -: JUDGEMENT IN THE REVIEW APPLICATIONS HAS EXTRACTED THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ON WHICH THE APPEALS WERE ORIGINAL LY ADMITTED AND THIS APPEARS AT PARA 1 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUND ER:- WHETHER THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RIGHT IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE, WHICH HAVING FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD BY TRAVERSING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE RECORDS AND AGAINST THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE VARIOUS STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES AS A LSO THE ADMISSIONS MADE IN THE REMAND REPORT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF? 10. CONSIDERING THE FLOW OF EVENTS RECITED ABOVE, W E ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR THAT HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD REMITTED THE ISSUES O THER THAN THOSE RELATED TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME ALSO, TO THIS TRIBUN AL. NO DOUBT, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAS MENTIONED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS TO RE CONSIDER OTHER ISSUES. HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION, THE WORDS OTHER ISSUES MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 24 OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 30.07.2018 ONLY INDICATE THOSE ISSUES RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NOTHING ELSE. ACCORDING TO US, ON ISSU ES OTHER THAN THOSE RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS EARLIER ORDER, HAVING NOT BEEN QUESTIONED BY AN Y PARTY HAS REACHED FINALITY. ITA NOS.1512 TO 1514/2003 :- 11 -: 11. COMING TO THE QUESTION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME W ITHOUT DOUBT THERE IS A REMAND REPORT OBTAINED DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A PPEALS) . IN THE SAID REMAND REPORT WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURAL INC OME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- A.Y: 1995-96: FOR THE A.Y.1995-96 THE ASSESSEE ADM ITTED AN INCOME OF 3,09,280/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 4 0,05,840/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE INCOME OF 13,36,5 40/-. THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS WERE MADE: 1. CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TREATED AS NON- AGRICULTURAL INCOME : 4,08,840 2. GIFT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF SELF AND DAUGHTERS: : 4,32,921 3. LOAN FROM SARASWATHI : 2,00,000 REGARDING TREATMENT OF INCOME AS NON-AGRICULTURAL , IT IS SEEN THAT THE ENQUIRIES WERE MADE BY THE ITOM, VIRUDHUNAGAR T HROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, SWORN STATEMENT WAS ALSO A PPEARED TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED FROM ONE SHRI BOSE WHO HAS STATE D TO HAVE BEEN LOOKING AFTER THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. FROM THE ABOVE STATEMENT, IT IS SEEN THAT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY HA D BEEN CARRIED OUT IN LAND EXCEEDING NEARLY 30 ACRES. SHRI BOSE APPEAR S TO BE AN AGENT AND NOT ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY . HE APPEARS TO BE BASICALLY A FORMER MECHANIC IN FIRE SERVICES. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE ADMINISTR ATIVE OFFICER OF NORTH DEVADANAM VILLAGE THAT THE INCOME FROM THE A GRICULTURAL LEASE IS LIKELY TO BE AROUND 7 LAKHS PER ANNUM. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN THE DETAILS OF LAND SURVEY NO. ETC. IN VIEW OF THIS TREATING THE ENTIRE INCOME AS NON- AGRICULTURAL DOES NOT APPEAR BE IN O RDER. THE CIT(A) MAY CONSIDER THE INCOME AS AGRICULTURAL TO T HE EXTENT HE IS SATISFIED. THE OTHER ISSUES MAY BE DECIDED ON MERIT S. ITA NOS.1512 TO 1514/2003 :- 12 -: SAID REMAND REPORT ALSO REQUESTS THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) TO FOLLOW THE ABOVE FOR OTHER Y EARS ALSO. THE REMAND REPORT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN TURN, BASED ON AN ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 30.03.1999 OF SHRI .SUDALAIMUT HU, INSPECTOR OF INCOME-TAX DEPUTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER . A COPY OF THE SAID ENQUIRY REPORT IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THIS REPORT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- ENQUIRY REPORT : AS DIRECTED BY ITO, WD-I(3), VIRUDHUNAGAR, I HAD BE EN TO DEVADANAM VILLAGE OF RAJAPALAYAM TALUK, VIRUDHUNAG AR DIST. IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE OF SMT.B.JAYALAKSHMI , W/O . BALASANKARALINGAM, PLOT NO,859, 11 TH STREET, SYNDICATE BANK COLONY, ANNANAGAR WEST EXTENSION, CHENNAI-101. I MADE DISCREET ENQUIRIES IN AND AROUND DEVADANAM VILLAGE WITH REGARD TO OWNERSHIP OF THE AGRICULTUR AL LANDS TO THE EXTENT OF 36 ACRES AND AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS THER EON. I ALSO MADE DIRECT ENQUIRES WITH SOME OF THE VILLAGERS OF DEVADANAM VILLAGE. I WENT ROUND THE ENTIRE FIELD AREA CONSIST ING OF COCONUT FARM, MANGO GROVE AND FIELDS IN WHICH PADDY, /BANANA/SUGARCANE IS CULTIVATED. ALL THE 36 ACRES A RE NANJAI LANDS AND FERTILE IN NATURE. THESE LANDS ARE ACTUALLY OWNED BY SRI K.DHANUSKODI, S/O.SHRI KOTTAMADAN, SOUTH DEVADANAM VILLAGE, RAJAPALAYAM TA LUK, VIRUDHUNAGAR DIST AND HIS SON MUTHUKUMAR OF THE ABO VE VILLAGE. THESE LANDS HAVE BEEN LEASED OUT TO SMT.B.JAYALAKSH MI FOR FIVE YEARS TERM COMMENCING FROM 23.9.94. STATEMENT OBTAI NED FROM SRI K.DHANUSKODI OWNER OF THE LAND FOR HIMSELF AND HIS SON (SHRI MUTHUKUMAR S/O. SHRI K.DHANUSKODI IS STUDYING IN PS G COLLEGE AT COIMBATORE) ALONG WITH THE LEASE AGREEMENT DEED COPIES AND A STATEMENT FROM SHRI A.MUTHUMANICKAM S/O.SHRI AAV EL 16/1, SOUTH DEVADANAM VILLAGE, WATCHMAN OF THE LAND IN QU ESTION ARE ENCLOSED. ITA NOS.1512 TO 1514/2003 :- 13 -: I ALSO CONTACTED THE VAO OF NORTH DEVADANAM VILLA GE TO ASCERTAIN THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE OWNERSHIP O F THE LAND AND THE PERSON FROM WHOM THESE LANDS WERE LEASED OU T. THE VAO AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE ADANGAL REGISTER HAS ISSUED A CERTIFICATE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE LANDS BELONG TO SHRI K.DHANUSKODI AND HIS SON SRI D.MUTHUKUMAR AND THE SAME HAS BEEN LEASED OUT TO SMT.B.JAYALAKSHMI OF CHENNAI. C ERTIFICATE FROM THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER IS ALSO ENC LOSED. IN OUR OPINION, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE REMAND REPORT AND THE UNDERLYING ENQUIRY REPORT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE THE CLAIM RIGHTLY ALLOWED BY THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). APART FROM THIS, IN OUR OPINI ON, THERE IS MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AR THA T ON ISSUES WHERE A REMAND REPORT IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE, REVENUE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN AGGRIEVED PARTY. HONBLE AP EX COURT IN ITS JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF SRMB DAIRY FARMING (P) LTD .(SUPRA) HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED TO SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOW THE NA TIONAL LITIGATION POLICY. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE A PART OF SUCH POLICY HERE: 3. THE PURPOSE UNDERLYING THIS POLICY IS ALSO TO R EDUCE THE GOVERNMENT LITIGATION IN COURTS SO THAT THE VAL UABLE COURT TIME WOULD BE SPENT IN RESOLVING OTHER PENDIN G CASES SO AS TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL IN THE PRINCIPLES INCORPORATED IN THE NATIONAL MISSION FOR JUDICIAL R EFORMS WHICH INCLUDES IDENTIFYING BOTTLENECKS WHICH THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS AGENCIES MAY BE CONCERNED WITH ITA NOS.1512 TO 1514/2003 :- 14 -: AND ALSO REMOVING UNNECESSARY GOVERNMENT CASES. PRIORITIZATION IN LITIGATION HAS TO BE ACHIEVED WIT H PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON WELFARE LEGISLATION, SOCIAL REFORM, WEAKER SECTIONS AND SENIOR CITIZENS AND OTH ER CATEGORIES REQUIRING ASSISTANCE MUST BE GIVEN UTMOS T PRIORITY. IN RESPECT OF FILING OF APPEALS IN REVENUE MATTERS IT IS STATED AS UNDER: (G) APPEALS IN REVENUE MATTERS WILL NOT BE FILED: (A) IF THE STAKES ARE NOT HIGH AND ARE LESS THAN THAT AMOUNT TO BE FIXED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES: (B) IF THE MATTER IS COVERED BY A SERIES OF JUDGEMENTS OF THE TRIBUNAL OR OF THE HIGH COURT WHICH HAVE HELD THE FIELD AND WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CHALLENGED IN THE SUPREME COURT: (C) WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LONG STANDING INDUSTRY PRACTICE: (D) MERELY BECAUSE OF CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE PAR T OF THE JURISDICTIONAL OFFICERS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT I N THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE, INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ISSUE RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. ITA NOS.1512 TO 1514/2003 :- 15 -: 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 8 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI / DATED:- 08 TH NOVEMBER, 2018. SOMU / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ( ) / CIT(A) 5. / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. / CIT 6. / GF