ITO, CHENNAI V. J.Brahmananda, CHENNAI

ITA 1996/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90593 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P RENGA RAMANUJAM

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . , ! '# $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.1996/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER SALARY WARD II(1) CHENNAI VS. SHRI J. BRAHMANANDA NO.16-A (OLD NO.8-B) SABAPATHI STREET AYANAVARAM CHENNAI 600 023 [PAN ADKPB 2738 B] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. RENGA RAMANUJAM, CA / DATE OF HEARING : 01-06-2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-06-2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, CHENN AI, DATED 28.2.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT ITA NO.1996/14 :- 2 -: HE CULTIVATED 8.58 ACRES OF LAND. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT COCONUT TREES WERE CULTIVATED AND PLANTAIN WAS CULTIVATED AS INTERCROP. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED T HAT THE INCOME FROM THE ABOVE CULTIVATION WAS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 17,17,728/-. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY S OLD THE LAND AND IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF COCONU T TREES WAS MENTIONED AS 100. HOWEVER, THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRAT IVE OFFICER CERTIFIES THAT THE STANDING COCONUT TREES WERE ABOUT 700. IN VIEW OF THE DIFFERENCES IN RESPECT OF THE STANDING COCONUT TREE S AND THE CULTIVATION SAID TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE HIS CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, T HE INCOME OF ` 17,17,728/- WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE EARNED A SUM OF ` 8,64,400/- FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION. THE LD . DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE ESTIMATING THE AGRICULTURAL IN COME OF ` 8,64,400/,- THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED ANY EXPEN SES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING THE INCOME. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CULTIVATED 7.52 ACRES OF LAND WITH COCONUT AND 1.06 ACRES OF LAND WITH BANANA CULTIVATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE, AT THE BEST, WOULD HAVE CULTIVATED 70-80 COCONUT TREES PER ACRE, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT 700 TREES WERE CULTIVAT ED IN 7.52 ACRES IS ITA NO.1996/14 :- 3 -: TOTALLY NOT CORRECT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TH AT ONLY 100 STANDING COCONUT TREES WERE ON THE ABOVESAID LAND IN THE REG ISTERED SALE DEED, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 8,64,400/-. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI P. RENGA RAMANUJAM, LD. REPRESEN TATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FRO M THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT THE CIT(A) CAL LED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD . THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLARIFIED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE AS SESSEE CLAIMED THAT 700 COCONUT TREES ARE STANDING IN THE LAND AND IN T HE REGISTERED SALE DEED THE NUMBER OF STANDING COCONUT TREES WERE MENT IONED AS 100. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE COPI ES OF THE CERTIFICATES GIVEN BY TAHSILDAR AND THE COPIES OF THE ADANGAL RE GISTER. IN THE STATE OF TAMILNADU, ADANGAL IS AN ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY T HE STATE REVENUE DEPARTMENT FOR CULTIVATION. NORMALLY, THE VILLAGE A DMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WOULD RECORD THE CULTIVATION IN THE ADAGAL REGISTER . THE ADANGAL REGISTER CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE CULTIVATED COCONUT AND PLANTAIN ITA NO.1996/14 :- 4 -: IN THE SUBJECT LAND. THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT, TH ERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO NATURE OF CROP CULTIVATED BY THE ASSESSE E. 5. NOW, THE DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO NUMBER OF COCONU T TREES. AS PER THE ASSESSEES REGISTERED SALE DEED, THE ST ANDING COCONUT TREES ARE ONLY 100. HOWEVER, THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AS WELL AS THE TAHSILDAR CERTIFIES THAT THE STANDING COCONUT T REES ARE 700. FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CULTIVATED 7.52 ACRES OF LAND WITH COCONUT TREES AND THE REMAI NING 1.06 ACRES OF LAND WITH BANANA. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR, AT THE BEST 70-80 COCONUT TREES COULD BE CULTIVATED IN AN ACRE OF LAND. THEREFORE, CULTI VATION OF 700 COCONUT TREES IN 7.52 ACRES OF LAND MAY NOT BE PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE. EVEN IF 700 COCONUT TREES ARE PLANTED AS CERTIFIED BY THE VILLA GE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND TAHSILDAR, THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET THE EXPECTED YIELD FROM THE SAID COCONUT TREES. SINCE THE NUMBER OF TREES IS IN DISPUTE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED P INION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REEXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. F OR THE PURPOSE OF ESTIMATION OF YIELD FROM THE STANDING COCONUT TREES , WE HAVE TO FIRST DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF COCONUT TREES STANDING ON T HE LAND. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY PAIN TO VERIFY THE NUMBER OF STANDING COCONUT TREES ON THE LAND. ACCORDINGLY, T HE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE IS RE MITTED BACK TO THE FILE ITA NO.1996/14 :- 5 -: OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SHALL EXAMINE THE ISS UE AFRESH AND FIND OUT THE NUMBER OF COCONUT TREES ACTUALLY STANDING O N THE LAND AND THEREAFTER ESTIMATE THE POSSIBLE INCOME FROM THE AB OVESAID AGRICULTURAL LAND. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH OF JUNE, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 30 TH JUNE, 2015 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF