T.S.R.Khannaiyann, CHENNAI V. ACIT, Coimbatore

ITA 381/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0167 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Peak credit; Onus to prove; Set aside
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' # , % #& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.381/CHNY/2018 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI T.S.R. KHANNAIYANN, NO.67, AVARAMPALAYAM ROAD, K.R. PURAM, COIMBATORE 641006. PAN : AFZPK 7832 C V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SH. T. BANUSEKAR, CA ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SRIDHAR DORA, JCIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 11.06.2019 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.06.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -1, COIMBATORE , DATED 18.12.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. SH. T. BANUSEKAR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERA TION IS ADDITION OF 98,28,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ACCORDING T O THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THERE ARE CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRA WALS IN THE SAVINGS 2 I.T.A. NO.381/CHNY/18 BANK ACCOUNT IN KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, CORPORATION BA NK, CANARA BANK AND AXIS BANK. REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT OF DEPOS ITS AND WITHDRAWALS OF CASH FROM VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS, THE LD. REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS OF CASH FROM BANK ACC OUNT ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, REJECTED THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH OUT ANY BASIS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, WHEN THE DEPOS ITS AND WITHDRAWALS WERE SUBSTANTIATED BY NECESSARY MATERIAL, AT THE BE ST, THERE MAY BE ADDITION WITH REGARD TO PEAK CREDIT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO COMPUTE THE PEAK CREDIT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE TAK EN AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SRIDHAR DORA, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THERE ARE CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS FROM VARIOUS SAVI NGS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL. AC CORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES CONTAINS ONLY THE CASH WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS FRO M THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING MATERIAL FOR THE EXPENDIT URE SAID TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R. , THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 3 I.T.A. NO.381/CHNY/18 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS IN THE SAVINGS BANK A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AT VARIOUS BANKS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THA T THE MONEY WITHDRAWN FROM THE ABOVE ACCOUNTS WERE USED FOR MAK ING DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T HE IS IN THE HABIT OF WITHDRAWING FUNDS FROM HIS OWN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AND WHEREVER THE BALANCE AMOUNT REMAINS, IT WILL BE RE-DEPOSITED IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE TH E CIT(APPEALS) THAT ONLY PEAK CREDIT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION . 5. THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS SOME FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THERE IS A R EGULAR DEPOSIT OF CASH AND WITHDRAWAL FROM SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE RE-DEPOSITED THE MONEY IN T HE VERY SAME SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS AGRICULTURA L INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF 37 LAKHS. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS TO TAKE ONLY THE PEAK CREDIT WITH REGARD TO DEPOSITS A ND WITHDRAWALS OF FUNDS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE AR E UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND ASSESSING OFFICER ARE SET ASIDE AN D THE ASSESSING 4 I.T.A. NO.381/CHNY/18 OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE PEAK CREDIT AFTE R TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS FRO M BANK ACCOUNTS AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO CRED ITS IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF M/S HINDUSTAN HEAVY ELECTRICALS. 7. SH. T. BANUSEKAR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CREDIT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF M/S HINDUSTAN HEAVY ELECTRICALS WAS 24,60,000/- AND NOT 29,60,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL FACTS, HAS TAKEN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF M/S HINDUSTAN HEAVY ELECTRICALS AT 29,60,000/- INSTEAD OF 24,60,000/- ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE CASH INTRODUCED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS FROM THE WITHDRAWAL FROM BA NK. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONSOLID ATED STATEMENT CONTAINING OF WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS IN THE BANK BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(APPEALS), A COPY OF WHICH IS AL SO FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE MATTER MAY BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. WE HEARD SHRI SRIDHAR DORA, THE LD. D.R. ALSO. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT HE IS PLACING RELIANCE ON THE OBSERV ATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(APPEALS). 5 I.T.A. NO.381/CHNY/18 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE CREDIT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS ONLY 24,60,000/- AND NOT 29,60,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE S OURCE FOR DEPOSIT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS MAINLY WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK . AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONSOLIDATE D STATEMENT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT DISCLOSING THE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWAL S. SINCE THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT 5 LAKHS IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-E XAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF 29,60,000/- IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPLANATION / MAT ERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS EE. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDI TION OF 6,24,526/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 11. SH. T. BANUSEKAR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAS UTILISED THE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAVIN GS BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTRODUCING CASH IN THE CAPITAL ACCO UNT OF M/S HINDUSTAN 6 I.T.A. NO.381/CHNY/18 HEAVY ELECTRICALS. WE FIND THAT THE COMBINED STATE MENT OF CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS WAS FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES AND BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF 29,60,000/-, THIS TRIBUNAL REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. SINCE THIS ADDITION IS SIMILAR TO UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE CAPITAL A CCOUNT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO ADDIT ION OF 6,24,526/- IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDI TION OF UNSECURED LOAN TO THE EXTENT OF 48,00,000/- FROM ONE SHRI G. RAMESH. 13. SH. T. BANUSEKAR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CREDITOR CONFIRMED THE PAYMENT O F 48,00,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE COPY OF CO NFIRMATION LETTER DATED 01.04.2012 WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A S WELL AS THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CONFIRMATION LETTER CONTAINS THE ADDRESS OF THE CREDITOR AND HIS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER. THEREFO RE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED HIS LIABILITY. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE FURTHER AND FIND OUT W HETHER THE CREDIT TO BE ACCEPTED OR NOT. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT INSPITE OF FILING OF CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM SHRI G. RAMESH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED AS IF CONFIRMATION LETTER 7 I.T.A. NO.381/CHNY/18 WAS NOT FILED FROM SHRI G. RAMESH. THEREFORE, ACCO RDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF 48,00,000/-. 14. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SRIDHAR DORA, THE LD. D.R ., SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF 93,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND T HAT A SUM OF 40,00,000/- FROM SHRI K. RAMASUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHE R SUM OF 5,00,000/- WERE BORROWED ON 11.12.2010 AND 28.06.20 06 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE DATE OF THESE BORROWALS DO NOT FALL WITHI N THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDIT ION MADE IN RESPECT OF THE CREDITS FROM SHRI K. RAMASUBRAMANIAM AND SHR I RAJASEDHU. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD. D.R. CLARIFIED THAT T HE REVENUE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEA LS) IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF THOSE TWO ADDITIONS. NOW WHAT REMAIN S IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT SAID TO BE BORROWED FROM SHRI G. RAMESH. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED T HAT THE CREDITOR HAS JUST PUT HIS INITIAL ON THE SO-CALLED CONFIRMATION LETTER. IT DOES NOT SPEAK ANYTHING ABOUT THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION AND SOURCE FOR ADVANCE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEA LS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF 48,00,000/- BORROWED FROM SHRI G. RAMESH. 8 I.T.A. NO.381/CHNY/18 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A SUM OF 93,00,000/- WERE BORROWED FROM THREE PERSONS. 48,00,000/- FROM SHRI G. RAMESH, 40,00,000/- FROM SHRI K. RAMASUBRAMANIAM AND 5,00,000/- FROM SHRI RAJASEDHU. OUT OF THESE 93,00 ,000/-, IN RESPECT OF 45,00,000/- BORROWED FROM SHRI K. RAMASUBRAMANIAM A ND SHRI RAJASEDHU, THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE BORROWAL S WERE NOT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDITIONS. THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THAT PORTION OF THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION OF 48,00,000/- BORROWED FROM SHRI G. RAMESH. THE ASSESSEE IS CONT ESTING THAT PART OF THE ORDER BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE FILED A CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 01.04.2012. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOUND THAT THE CONFIRMATION LETTER WAS NOT FILED BEFORE HER, THE F ACT REMAINS THAT THE INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO ADDRESS OF THE SAID SHRI G. RAMESH AND PAN WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND THE CIT(APPEALS). ONCE THE DETAILS OF ADDRESS AND PAN OF THE CREDITOR WERE AVAILABLE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE AND FIND OUT WHETHER T HE SAID SHRI G. RAMESH HAS SUFFICIENT CREDITWORTHINESS TO LEND MONE Y TO THE ASSESSEE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY STEP TO DO SO. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DOES NOT SAY 9 I.T.A. NO.381/CHNY/18 ANYTHING ABOUT THE SOURCE OF ADVANCE AND THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION. WHEN THE CREDITOR CONFIRMS THE AMOUNT PAYABLE BY TH E ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 48,00,000/- AS ON 31.03.2012 AND THE SAID LETTER CO NTAINS THE ADDRESS AND PAN OF THE CREDITOR, THIS TRIBUNAL IS O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS OBLIGA TION. THEREFORE, THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTED ON THE SHOULDER OF THE REVE NUE. SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY STEP TO INVESTIGATE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITIO N WITH REGARD TO THE LOAN SAID TO BE BORROWED FROM SHRI G. RAMESH ALSO. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY A ND THE ADDITION OF 48,00,000/- BORROWED FROM SHRI G. RAMESH IS ALSO DE LETED. 16. NOW COMING TO THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED 37,27,170/- FROM AGRICULTURE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER RESTRICTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF 18,72,974/-. THE BALANCE OF 18,54,196/- WAS ADDED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE C ULTIVATED TURMERIC. REFERRING TO THE ESTIMATED INCOME BY TAMIL NADU AGR ICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. REP RESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY ESTIMATED THE INCO ME AT 18,218/- PER ACRE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATI VE, THE ASSESSING 10 I.T.A. NO.381/CHNY/18 OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME L ESS THAN THE AVERAGE ESTIMATION MADE BY TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSI TY. 17. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SRIDHAR DORA, THE LD. D.R ., SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. SARASWATHY ADMITTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF 15,46,323/- THE ASSESSEES WIFE CLAIMED CULTIVATION OF 5 ACRES OF TURMERIC. EVEN THOUGH THE INCOME ADMITTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE AND HIS WIFE ARE SAME, THE AREA OF CULTIVATION WAS DIFFERENT. THERE FORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WA S MISMATCH AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER RESTRICTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF 18,72,974/- AND THE BALANCE OF 18,54,196/- WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S. 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE CULT IVATED COCONUT, MAIZE, TAPIOCA, TURMERIC AND GRASS. THE DISPUTE IS WITH R EGARD TO INCOME FROM CULTIVATION OF TURMERIC. WHILE ESTIMATING INCOME F ROM AGRICULTURE, THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES ARE EXPECTED TO KEEP IN MIND T HAT THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IS AN UNORGANIZED ONE IN THIS COUNTRY. THER EFORE, MAINTENANCE OF BILLS AND OTHER SUPPORTING MATERIAL MAY NOT BE POSS IBLE. WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CULTIVATED THE CROP AS CLAIMED. SUCH A CULTIVATION MAY BE SUPPORTED BY THE CULTIVATION ACC OUNT MAINTAINED BY THE 11 I.T.A. NO.381/CHNY/18 STATE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. IN THIS CASE, THE CULTIV ATION IS NOT IN DISPUTE. ONLY THE AVERAGE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT FROM CULTIVAT ION IS IN DISPUTE. 19. BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE ASSES SEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE MANUAL OF TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURAL U NIVERSITY. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE PROJECTION OF ESTIMATION OF TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY IS BASED UPON THE AVERAGE YIELD THAT MAY BE EXPECTED FOR A PARTICULAR CROP. THE ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL UN IVERSITY CANNOT ALWAYS BE REACHED BY THE FARMERS. THE CROP CULTIVATED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY GIVE GOOD YIELD FOR SOME YEARS WHICH MAY BE MORE TH AN THE ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND IN SOME OF THE YEARS, I T MAY BE FAR LESS THAN THE ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY. THEREFO RE, THE ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY MAY BE ONE OF THE FACTORS T O BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BUT THAT ALONE CANNOT BE A REASON FOR ESTIMATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE MA DE THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME FROM TURMERIC AT 18,218/- PER ACRE AS PROJECTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTH ER MATERIAL, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PROJECTION OF AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME FROM TURMERIC AT 18,218/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL FIND OUT THE AREA OF CULTIVATION OF 12 I.T.A. NO.381/CHNY/18 TURMERIC AND ESTIMATE THE INCOME FROM TURMERIC CULT IVATION AT 18,218/- PER ACRE. 20. THE NEXT ISSUE IS TELESCOPING OF UNEXPLAINED CR EDIT WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURE. 21. HAVING HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE AND THE LD. D.R., THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION TH AT TO THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS FUNDS, THEREF ORE, THE SAME NEEDS TO BE TELESCOPED IN CASE THE ADDITION WAS MADE UNDE R UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27 TH JUNE, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 27 TH JUNE, 2019. KRI. 13 I.T.A. NO.381/CHNY/18 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-1, COIMBATORE 4. PRINCIPAL CIT- 1, COIMBATORE 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. =) > /GF.