Sasi Enterprises, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 213/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5097 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K RAMASAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: G NARAYANASAMY
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI B BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI J.M. & SHRI. N.S. SAINI A.M. I.T.A. NO S . 212 AND 213 / MDS/201 1 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005 - 06 AND 06 - 07 SASI ENTERPRISES, NO. 36, POES GARDEN, CHENNAI 600 086. [PAN: AA CFS 4669P ] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE II(2), CHENNAI 600 034 . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G. NARAYANASAMY REVENUE BY : SHRI K. RAMASAMY, STANDING COUNSEL ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M . TH E S E TWO A PPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) II, CHENNAI BOTH DATED 12.11.2010 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 AND 06 - 07 RESPECTIVELY, WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED CONFIRMATION OF TREATING AGRICUL TURAL INCOME RETURNED AT ` . 70,000/ - EACH AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME FOR BOTH THE YEARS. 2. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SAME, FACTS INVOLVED ARE IDENTICAL AND THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREFORE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS SINGLE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONV ENIENCE. 3. FACTS INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURNS OF INCOME FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL SHOWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` .70,000/ - IN EACH YEAR. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF L AND HOLDING, DETAILS OF CROPS CULTIVATED, EXPENDITURE I.T.A. NO S . 212 & 213 /MDS/1 1 2 INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH CULTIVATION TOGETHER WITH EVIDENCE AND ALSO TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH DETAILS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL P RODUCTS TO SUPPORT THE RECEIPT FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE AMOUNT OF INCOME ADMITTED UNDER THE HEAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE, WHEN ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT A PA RTICULAR AMOUNT OF INCOME IS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND IS EXEMPT WHILE RELYING UPON THE CASE OF CIT V. R. VENKATASAMY NAIDU 29 ITR 529 (SC). THUS, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND TREATED IT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME FOR BOTH THE YEARS. 4. TH E ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS FOR BOTH THE YEARS, BUT REMAINED UNSUCCESSFUL AND IN FURTHER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUNDARAKOTTAI VILLAGE, MANNARGUDI TALUK, TI RUVARUR. TH E RE ARE COCONUT, MANGO AND J ACK FRUIT TREES IN THE LANDS AND THEY HAVE BEEN LEASED OUT DURING THE YEAR AND THE ANNUAL LEASE RENT OF ` . 70,000/ - IS BEING RECEIVED, WHICH HAS BEEN RETURNED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SIMILAR AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AND WAS BEING ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EARLIER YEARS INCLUDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02 TO 2004 - 05 F OR WHICH ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3), WHEREIN DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ` .60,000/ - , ` .60,000/ - , ` .72,000/ - , AND ` .72,000/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02, 02 - 03, 03 - 04 AND 04 - 05 , WHICH HAVE DULY BEEN ACCEPTED SO THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE A DIFFERENT STAND FOR THE I.T.A. NO S . 212 & 213 /MDS/1 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 AND 06 - 07 TO NOT TO TREAT TH E AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS SUCH AND TO ADD IT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IT WAS, THUS PLEADED THAT IN VIEW OF THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE TAKEN THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS O R IT IS NOT YIELDING INCOME AND IN CA SE THIS BENCH FEELS THAT APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AS ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO FURNISH ALL NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND TO THIS PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH FOR BOTH THE YEARS. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERING THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ` .70,000/ - FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED SUCH INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE HAVING NOT BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEREAS, IT IS THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE PAST, SINCE SIMILAR TYPE OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING WERE BEING RETURNED AND ACCEPTED FOR EARLIER YEARS AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 01 - 02, 02 - 03, 03 - 04 AND 04 - 05 ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) (COPY OF SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD) IN WHICH RETURNED AGRICULTURAL I NCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS SUCH, T HEREFORE, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ADDITION TO TREAT SUCH INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IN CASE IF THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK ON THE I.T.A. NO S . 212 & 213 /MDS/1 1 4 FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND IT JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE BACK THE MATTER IN REGARD TO T HE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE - DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. O RDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 12 .05.2011 . SD/ - SD/ - ( N.S. SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 12 . 0 5 .2011 VM/ - TO:THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R .