S.Cletus Babu, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1614/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73592 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: J SREE VIDYA; PUSHYA SITARAMAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1614/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 S. CLETUS BABU, NO.3-G, J, DEV REGENCY, NO.6, 1 ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI 600 016 [PAN: AAGPC 7005 D] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), CHENNAI 600 034 I.T.A. NO. 1615/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 J.X. AMALI, NO.3-G, J, DEV REGENCY, NO.6, 1 ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI 600 016 [PAN: AAIPA 7082 J] (APPELLANT) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), CHENNAI 600 034 (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PUSHYA SITARAMAN, SR.ADV. & MS. J.SREE VIDYA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N.BETGIRI, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 08-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-01-2014 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE AFORE MENTIONED TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF ITA NOS. 1614 & 1615/MDS/13 2 INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VI, CHENNAI DATED 28-12-2012. SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE COMMON ISSUE, THEY ARE TAKEN UP TO GETHER FOR ADJUDICATION. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE: BOTH THE ASSESSEES BELON G TO THE SAME FAMILY. IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEES HAVE DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. SHRI S. CLETUS BABU HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 11.00 LAKHS AND SMT. J.X.AMALI HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 10,75,000/-. BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE CLAIMED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF CASHEW CROP AND PADDY CULTIVATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONDUCTING PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION CONCLUDED, THAT THERE WAS NO CULTIVATION OF CASHEW DURING THE YEAR 2005-06 AND TREATED THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AS INCOME FROM SALE OF CASHEW CROPS AS UN-EXPLAINED INCOME. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF P ADDY CULTIVATION ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF AMOUNT CLAIMED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM PADDY CULTIVATION. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, BOTH THE ASSESSEES PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) . THE CIT(APPEALS) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT AND THERE AFTER PARTLY ITA NOS. 1614 & 1615/MDS/13 3 ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES WITH REGARD T O INCOME FROM PADDY CULTIVATION. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) REJEC TED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM SA LE OF CASHEW CROP. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER THE CIT(APPEALS), BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. 3. SHRI PUSHYA SITARAMAN, SR. ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS. J.SREE VIDYA, ADVOCATE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THERE WERE TREES IN EXISTENCE AT THE ASSESSEES LAND AS WELL AS IN THE LEASE HOLD LANDS. THE ASSESSEES HAVE TAKEN LEASE OF APPROXIMATELY THIRTY ACRES OF L AND WHERE IN CASHEW PLANTATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. THE TAHSILDAR, AMBASAMUDHIRAM HAS CERTIFIED THAT, THERE WERE CASHE W CULTIVATION AND THE SAME WAS OMITTED TO BE RECORDED IN THE FASL I YEAR 1415 RELEVANT TO THE ACCOUNTING YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT CATEGORICALL Y STATED THAT THE DISPUTE IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE YIELD OF CASHEW ON LY. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AFTER THE REMAND REPORT, THE QUESTION OF EXISTENCE OF CASHEW PLANTS HAS BEEN LAID TO REST. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS GIVEN IN THE REMAND ITA NOS. 1614 & 1615/MDS/13 4 REPORT. HE HAS RAISED DOUBTS ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI T.N.BETGIRI, REPRESENTIN G THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(AP PEALS) AND PRAYED FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSES. 5. BOTH SIDES HEARD. ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL LOW AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE NOS. 7 T O 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK PERUSED. IN REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT AS PER THE CERTIFICATES RECEIVED FRO M TAHSILDAR OF THE AREA, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (HORTICULTURE), AND TH E VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, FRUIT BEARING CASHEW TREES EXISTED ON THE LAND UNDER CULTIVATION OF THE ASSESSEES. HOWEVER, THE YIELD OF THE CASHEW CULTIVATION IS TO BE DETERMINED. WE FIND THAT CIT(APPEALS) HAS SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND PRO CEEDINGS. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DIS-BELIEVING THE CERTIFI CATES ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR AND THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (HORTICULT URE) WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT MACHIN ERY. NO PLAUSIBLE REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN DIS- BELIEVING THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE REVENUE OF FICIALS. SINCE, ITA NOS. 1614 & 1615/MDS/13 5 THE YIELD OF CASHEW CROP HAS TO BE DETERMINED, WE D EEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE FILE BACK TO ASSESSING OFF ICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF REMAND REPORT DATED 09-01-2009, AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATI ON AVERAGE YIELD OF CASHEW IN THE AREA AND THE EVIDENCE BROUGH T IN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE SALE OF CASHEW PRODUCE IN THE MARKET. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 8 TH JANUARY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) (VIK AS AWASTHY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 08 TH JANUARY, 2014 TNMM COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT(A)/CIT/DR