Coral Plantations P Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 277/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95901 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 2 76 /MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT Y EAR :200 5 - 0 6 M/S. DAISY PLANTATIONS P. LTD., 38, PUDUPET GARDEN STREET, CHENNAI 600 014. [PAN: AA ACD2720P ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , COMPANY WARD I( 1 ), CHENNAI . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ I.T.A.NO. 277/MDS/201 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005 - 06 M/S. CORAL PLANTATIONS P. LTD., 38, PUDUPET GARDEN STREET, CHENNAI 600 014. [PAN: AA B C C5266C ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , COMPANY WARD I(1), CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ I.T.A.NO. 278/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005 - 06 M/S. DAHILA PLANTATIONS P. LTD., 38, PUDUPET GARDEN STREET, CHENNAI 600 014. [PAN: AAACD27 19C ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , COMPANY WARD I(1), CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ I.T.A.NO. 279/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005 - 06 M/S. CARNATION PLANTATIONS P. LTD., 38, PUDUPET GARDEN STREET, CHENNAI 600 014. [PAN: AA ACC3059A ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , COMPANY WARD I(1), CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) I.T.A. NO S . 276 - 279 /M/ 1 5 2 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.S. SRIRAMAN , ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 14 . 08 .201 5 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 19 .08 .201 5 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH E S E FOUR APPEAL S FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDER S OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I , C HENNAI ALL DATED 2 9 . 1 0.201 4 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 5 - 0 6 . SINCE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, HEARD TOGETHER AND BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. I.T.A. NO. 276/MDS/2015 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETUR N OF INCOME BY DECLARING NIL INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVE ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE AND THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EXEMPT UNDER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND CALLED DETAILS AND EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED .1,40,000/ - FROM AGRICULTURE AGAINST WH ICH EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO .32,504/ - WAS CLAIMED AND ARRIVED AT A PROFIT OF .1,07,496/ - I.T.A. NO S . 276 - 279 /M/ 1 5 3 AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN EXEMPT INCOME. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FURTHER DETAIL TO THE EXTENT OF CULT IVABLE LAND, CROPS CULTIVATED, YIELD OBTAINED, DISPOSAL OF THE YIELD, DATE AND MODE OF RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEEDS ETC. IN RESPONSE TO THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT OWNED 40.43 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VEERAVANALLUR VILLAGE, AMBASAMUDRAM TALUK , TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 1993. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE LAND HAD YIELDED P ADDY IN 8.1 ACRES AND CASUARINA IN 11 ACRES AND SOLD IN THE LOCAL MARKET. IT WAS ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT CASUARINA WAS SOLD FOR .1,25,000/ - AND ALSO FILED DETAILS OF LORRY WEIGH BRIDGE TOKENS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE LAND REVENUE RECORD S RELATING TO THE LANDS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM REVENUE AUTHORITIES SUCH AS PATTA, CHITTA & ADANGAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED DETAILS OF THE LAND HOLDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH CONTAINS EXTENT OF CULTIVABLE LAND AND OWNERSHIP, NAME OF THE CROPS VIZ., PADDY, CASUARINA, ETC. PERCENTAGE OF AREA UNDER CULTIVATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION AND PARTICULARS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT NO DATES AND YEAR OR SEASON OF HARVEST WERE MENTION ED BY THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER IN I.T.A. NO S . 276 - 279 /M/ 1 5 4 RESPECT OF CROPS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT NO DETAILS WERE FILED IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF SEEDS, FERTILIZERS, PESTICIDES, PAYMENT OF WAGES TO LABOUR AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSES SEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE ASSESSEE IS HAVING 40.43 ACRES OF LAND, WHEREIN IT HAS CARRIED OUT CULTIVATION OF PADDY, CASUARINA, ETC. AND FILED PATTA, CHITTA & ADANGAL AS DIRECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED WEIGH BRIDGE SLIPS TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD CASUARINA. SO FAR AS PADDY IS CONCERNED, IT WAS SOLD TO LOCAL PEOPLE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF SEEDS, FERTILIZERS, PESTICIDES, DETAILS OF WAGES TO LABOURS AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO DETAILS WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I.T.A. NO S . 276 - 279 /M/ 1 5 5 8. B OTH SIDES HAVE BEEN HEARD, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE OWNED 40.43 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VEERAVANALLUR VILLAGE, AMBASAMUDRAM TALUK, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 1993. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME BY DECLARING NIL INCOME. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR DETAILS OF INCOME EARNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED .1,40,000/ - EARNED FROM THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND CLAIMED EXPENSES OF .32,504/ - AND THE REMAINING INCOME OF .1,07,496/ - CLAIMED AS EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED VARIOUS DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE CROP CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER DETAILS FROM REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE FROM VIL LAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, WHEREIN IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED DETAILS OF CULTIVATION, LAND OWNERSHIP, NAME OF CROPS VIZ. PADDY, CASUARINA, PERCENTAGE OF AREA UNDER CULTIVATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BELIEVED THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE V ILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE PERIOD WAS NOT MENTIONED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED WEIGH BRIDGE SLIPS TO SHOW THAT THE CASUARINA HAS BEEN TRANSPORTED TO LOCAL MARKET. SO FAR AS PADDY IS CONCERNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TH AT IT WAS SOLD IN THE LOCAL MARKET. FROM ALL THESE FACTS, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER GAVE A CERTIFICATE STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED AG RICULTURAL LAND AND PADDY & CASUARINA ARE CULTIVATED. THAT APART, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO I.T.A. NO S . 276 - 279 /M/ 1 5 6 FILED WEIGH BRID GE SLIPS TO SHOW THAT CASUARINA HAS BEEN SOLD IN THE MARKET. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCE D ALL THE DETAILS AS ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EXPLAINED IN DETAIL, IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISPROVE THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS CAST UPON IT TO PROVE THAT IT HAS BEEN CARRIED CULTIVATION OF PADDY, CASUARINA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER , WITHOUT DISPROVING THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE, SIMPLY REJECTED THE EXPLANATION WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION. IF AT ALL THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOUBTED THE CERTIFI CATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING EVERY POWER TO EXAMINE HIM UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DONE ANY POSITIVE AC TO DISPROVE THE FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS EXEMPT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN SO FAR AS APPEALS OF OTHER ASSESSEES IN I.T.A. NO. 277, 278 AND 279/MDS/2015 ARE CONCERNED , EXCEPT OF CHANGE OF FIGURES, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR ON IDENTICAL FACTS. BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION IN I.T.A. NO. 276/MDS/2015, THE OTHER APPEALS IN I.T.A. NO. 277 , 278 AND 279/MDS/2015 ARE ALSO ALLOWED. I.T.A. NO S . 276 - 279 /M/ 1 5 7 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 19 TH OF AUGUST, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - ( V. DURGA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 19 . 0 8 .201 5 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.