M/s Seetha Diary Pvt Ltd , Bangalore V. Income Tax officer Ward-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1738/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7143 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H L SOUMYA ACHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: GANGADHAR SASTRY K I TP
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BANGALORE BENCH C BEFORE S HRI JASON P BOAZ , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T . A. NO. 1738 /BANG/20 18 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 13 - 14 ) M/S. SEETHA DIARY PVT. LTD., NO.1624, 1 ST B CROSS, OPP. WATER TANK, CHANDRA LAYOUT, B ANGALORE - 560 040 . . APPELLANT. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1)(1), BANGALORE. .. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI GANGADHAR SASTRY K, I TP R E SPONDENT BY : SMT.H L SOUMYA ACHAR, ADDL. CIT (D.R) DATE OF H EARING : 19.09.2018. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 28 .09 .201 8 . O R D E R PE R SHRI JASON P BOAZ, A .M . : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 4, BANGALORE DT.20.02.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : 2.1 THE ASSESSEE, A COMPANY ENGAGED IN DAIRY FARMING, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 ON 30.09.2014 DECLARING LOSS OF ( - ) RS.1,04,620 AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF RS.27,70,000 UNDER SECTION 2 IT A NO. 1738 /BANG/201 8 10(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT'). THE CASE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.24.3.2016, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.26,65,380 IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENYING THE A SSESSEE'S ENTIRE CLAIM FOR EXEM P T ION UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.27,70,000. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) 4, BANGALORE WHO DISMISSED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.20 .2.2018. 3. THE ASSESSEE, BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) 4, BANGALORE DT.20.2.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN IT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 3 IT A NO. 1738 /BANG/201 8 4. GROUND NOS.1, 6 & 7 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR THEREON. 5. GROUND NO.5 SALE OF HENS. 5.1 IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER S VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO EV I D ENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT IT HAD EARNED INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15,30,000 FROM SALE OF HENS. BEFORE US, ON BEING QUERIED ON THIS ISSUE, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND AS IT HAS NO PROOF TO ESTABLISH THAT SUCH ACTIVITY WAS IN FACT CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS GROUND NO.5, BEING NOT PRESSED, IS RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. GROUND NOS.2 TO 4 - SALE OF MANGOES. 6.1 IN THESE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW IN HOLDING THAT THERE ARE NO MANGO TREES ON THE LAND LEASE D FOR CARRYING ON DAIRY FARMING ACTIVITIES AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILE D NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH SALE OF MANGOES. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THERE WERE 1800 FULL GROWN MANGO TREES ALREADY EXISTING ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND TAKEN ON LEASE FOR ITS DAILY FARMING ACTIVITIES AND IT IS MANGOES YIELDED FROM SUCH EXISTING TR EES THAT RESULTED IN THE ASSESSEE EARNING INCOME FROM SALE OF MANGOES. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS HEARD IN RESPECT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED. IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION, THAT THERE EXISTED MANGO TREES ON THE SAID LAND FROM WHICH IT EARNED INCOME, THE LEARNED 4 IT A NO. 1738 /BANG/201 8 AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE PLA C ED ON RECORD A COPY OF CERTIFI C ATE ISSUED BY THE DY. TAHSILDAR, THYAMAGONDLY HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATI VE THAT, IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT TH A T MANGO TREES EXISTED ON T HE SAID LAND TAKEN ON THE LEASE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER S VIEW THAT THERE WERE NO MANGO T REES ON THE SAID LAND W A S ERRONEOUS. 6.2 PER CONTRA, THE LE ARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AFORESAID COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, THYAMAGONDLY HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT WAS NEVER PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AT FACE VALUE AND THEREFORE THE ENTIRE ISSUE OF INCOME FROM SALE OF MANGOES FROM TREES THAT EXISTED ON THE SAID LANDS SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAM INATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIMS. 6.3.1 I HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FACTS THAT EMANATE FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE , IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14, CLAIMED THAT IT HAD EARNED INCOME OF RS.11,80,000 FROM SALE OF MANGOES. IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE BILLS FILED WERE SELF MADE WITHOUT ANY SIGNATURE ; THAT NO CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED BY THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE MANGOES WERE SOLD AND FURTHER THAT NO 5 IT A NO. 1738 /BANG/201 8 PROOF WAS FURNISHED TO ESTABLISH THAT MANGO TREES EXISTED ON THAT LEASED LAND. 6.3.2 BEFORE ME THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF CERTIFICATE FROM THE TAHSILDAR, THYAMAGONDLY HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE AS EVIDENCE TO CLAIM THAT MANGO TREES ACTUALLY EXISTED ON THE LAND TAKEN ON LEASE BY THE ASSESSEE. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR REVENUE, THIS DOCUMENT WAS NEVER PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR CIT(APPEALS) AND THEREFORE IS TENTAMOUNT TO FRESH / NEW EVIDENCE WHICH R E QUIRES EXAMINATION / VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH THE A SSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR EARNING INCOME FROM SALE OF MANGOES. IN THESE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT SINCE THE CERTIFICATE OF TAHSILDAR, THYAMAGONDLY HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE ME WAS NOT FILED IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO THAT THIS CERTIFICATE CONSTITUTING EVIDENCE THAT COULD GO TO THE ROOT OF THE EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR HAVING EARNED INCOME FROM SALE OF MANGOES FROM TREES ALR EADY EXISTING ON THE LEASED LAND, IT WOULD ONLY BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS AND INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE THAT THE SAME EVIDENCE BE ADMITTED AND THIS MATTER; OF THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SALE OF MANGOES; BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AFFORD THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND TO FILE DETAILS / SUBMISSIONS REQUIRED, WHICH SHALL BE DULY CONSIDERED BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE. IT IS ACCORDINGLY 6 IT A NO. 1738 /BANG/201 8 DIRECTED. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUNDS 2 TO 4 OF ASSESSEE'S APPEAL AR E ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORD ER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 2 8TH DAY OF SEPT., 201 8 . SD/ - ( JASON P BOAZ ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DT. 28 .09.2018. *REDDY GP COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 4 CIT(A) 2 RESPONDENT 5 DR. ITAT, BANGALOR E 3 CIT 6 GUARD FILE SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.