ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s Rajdhani Nurseries Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1969/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3680 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BANITA DEVI NEROM
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT GOEL
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.1969 /DEL/10 1/3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1969 /DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ACIT, RAJDHANI NURSERIES LTD., CENTRAL CIRCLE, B-30, LAWRENCE ROAD, NEW DELHI. V. INDL. AREA, N. DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO.AABCS-1484-Q APPELLANT BY : SMT. BANITA DEVI NEROM, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMIT GOEL, C.A. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA, AM: THIS IS REVENUE'S APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A)-II, NEW DELHI DATED 8.2.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: - 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SALE OF PLANTS AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHER EAS THE FACTS IS THAT THE BASIC AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE NOT CARRIED OUT IN THIS CASE. 2. THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENA BLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 3. LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WHEREAS LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT . I.T.A. NO1969/DEL/10 2/3 THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN I.T.A. NO.1063 & 1064/DEL/2009 DATED 4.6.2009. HE SUBMITTE D A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 3.2. OF T HE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) WHEREIN IT IS NOTED BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT THIS ISSUE IS COV ERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES OW N CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AS WELL AS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2 004-05. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THA T THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS REGARDING THE NATURE OF PLANTATION INCOME OF RS.40,29,667/-. THIS INCOME WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS TREATED THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME. IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON PAGE NO.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIM ILAR TO THOSE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHEREIN AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. HENCE, ADMITTEDLY THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND THE FACTS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ARE SIMILAR. IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE AND HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRES ENT YEAR. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) B Y RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE O F HEARING I.E. IST JULY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (A.K. G ARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 01.7.2010. HMS . I.T.A. NO1969/DEL/10 3/3 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).